Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSEX RIVER AND SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday 19th June at Seven o'clock.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 19th June at Seven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

New Jobs (Service Industries)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify the particular service industries in which it is estimated 60,000 new jobs will be created in the six years 1965 to 1970.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Among the sectors which will contribute to the 60,000 additional jobs in expanding service industries are professional and scientific services, public administration and insurance and banking.

Mr. Monro: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the first paragraph of "A Plan for Expansion" he forecast that there would be 60,000 jobs by 1970? Where are they, and how many has he obtained so far?

Mr. Ross: So far, in the services I have listed plus miscellaneous services there has been an increase in new jobs of 57,000.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect of the selective employment tax on the achievement of the target of 60,000 new jobs in service industries by 1970, as projected in the White Paper, The Scottish Economy 1965–1970, Command Paper Number 2864.

Mr. Ross: The total number of new jobs in the service industries as a whole is likely to be close to the figure mentioned in the Paper on "The Scottish Economy".
The figures available indicate that losses of employment in certain sectors of service industry, though significant, have been largely compensated by new jobs in other sectors.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In spite of what the Secretary of State says, is he aware of the conclusion in the Gaskin Committee's Report that S.E.T. is accelerating the migration of workers from the North-East of Scotland? How does he reconcile this with his aim of increasing employment?

Mr. Ross: We have time and time again explained that our main concern is with the overall state of the economy. The implication of this is that we must improve the outlook for the manufacturing industries, thereby consequentially benefiting the service industries.

Mr. Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what is the balance of profit to Scotland if S.E.T. and the regional employment premium are taken together?

Mr. Ross: Not without notice.

Ski-ing Instruction (Grants)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support he gives to bodies in Scotland which undertake ski-ing instruction; and if he will name the bodies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): Annual grants are made to the Scottish National Ski Council, and also to the Scottish Council of Physical Recreation towards the cost of the Scottish Centre of Outdoor Training at Glenmore Lodge, where ski instruction is included in some courses.
Local ski clubs are eligible for grant under the local capital grants scheme, though that scheme does not include grant for ski instruction.

Mr. Maclennan: Do the Government offer financial support only to bodies or individuals undertaking training in sporting activities on a non-profit-making basis? By offering support to outdoor commercial ventures such as the Ardmore Adventure Centre in north-west Sutherland, might not outdoor training in sporting activities be made much more widely available?

CASES OF FOOD POISONING IN SCOTLAND NOTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE








1968
1967
1966
1965
7964
1963


May
…
…
…
…
47
81
27
44
62
57


June
…
…
…
…
68
26
30
56
108
109


July
…
…
…
…
…
43
49
91
125
93
40


August
…
…
…
…
88
137
37
108
149
51


September
…
…
…
…
562
56
32
71
64
64

Mr. Millan: I see considerable difficulties about making Government assistance available to commercial ventures. I know the project my hon. Friend mentions. I will look at any aspects of it that he would like me to, but the general rule must apply.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the Under-Secretary seek to relieve Scottish ski schools from the selective employment tax, because they feel that this is an anomalous burden seeing that the hotels which benefit from their activities have now been relieved of it?

Mr. Millan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to table that separate question.

Food Poisoning

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of food poisoning were reported to him during May, June, July, August and September of last year and how these figures compare with the previous five years.

Mr. Millan: As the Answer involves a number of figures, I am circulating a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the report he should be able to give me? Can he assure me that something will be done to reduce the incidence of food poisoning in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: We make considerable efforts towards this end, though the primary responsibility is that of the local authorities. If there are any particular respects in which my hon. Friend thinks that we should be taking further action. I should be very glad to consider them.

Following are the figures:

Under-age Drinking

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult with chief constables with a view to legislation to provide against the growing practice of under-age drinking, by devising ways and means whereby licencees can vet those ineligible; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): If my hon. Friend can suggest a practicable and enforceable system of vetting, I am certainly prepared to discuss it with chief constables and others concerned.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many licensees are unable to distinguish between those just under 18 and those just over 18, because the hair style of boys and the use of cosmetics by teenage girls makes them look much older? Will he consider having on an experimental basis an identity card system, under which the photograph of the person and date of birth could be obtained by the doubtfuls and supplied on demand to licensees, thus preventing licensees from supplying them with alcohol, on the one hand, and deterring under-age drinking, on the other?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of the difficulties of fashion as described by my hon. Friend. I am not sure that the system he advocates would be effective. In some ways it might be a positive inducement to evasion. If he is asking whether we are seriously concerned about the problem, I can assure him that we are.

Countryside Parks

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Scretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the development of countryside parks in Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): My right hon. Friend has been pleased to receive proposals under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 for three substantial country park projects, involving seven local planning authorities, and I understand that other authorities have proposals under consideration.

Mr. McMillan: Is my hon. Friend able to name the parks proposed?

Dr. Mabon: Yes. There is a proposal for a park sponsored by Ayr County Council, Ayr Town Council and Kilmarnock Town Council acting jointly with the National Trust for Scotland at Culzean Estate. Renfrew County Council has announced a pilot scheme at Muirshiel in advance of a much wider country park project. Lanark County Council, Motherwell Town Council and Hamilton Town Council are discussing proposals for a large park in the Hamilton Low Parks area.

Mr. Wylie: Does not the Minister agree that the Pentland Hills are an obvious area for treatment in this way under Section 48 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act?

Dr. Mabon: It is entirely a matter for the local authorities to promote these schemes. I would not like to comment on any particular area in case I should embarrass anyone.

Electronics Students

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many full-time students of electronics there are in Scottish institutions taking graduate courses at the latest available date;
(2) what is the average annual output of graduates specialising in electronics from Scottish institutions over the last three years.

Mr. Millan: It is not possible to give separate figures for electronics alone, but in the academic year 1967/68 904 students at universities and central institutions in Scotland were taking first degree and diploma courses in electrical engineering, including electronics. The average annual output from these courses in the three years 1965/66–1967/68 was 197.

Mr. Eadie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he able to tell me any firm in Scotland or in the United Kingdom which employs 2,000 graduates in the electronics industry? If this is even remotely possible, would not my hon. Friend agree that this would obviously restrict the spread of the electronics industry in the country?

Mr. Millan: I am not aware of any electronics firm in Scotland which


employs anything like that number of graduates, and I would be surprised if there were such a firm south of the Border cither.

Cafeterias and Restaurants (Hygiene)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of the regulations he has made regarding standards of hygiene in cafeterias and restaurants.

Mr. Millan: The current regulations are the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 1959, as amended in 1959 and 1961.

Mr. Hunter: Does not my hon. Friend agree that as an increasing number of Scottish people are eating out, the standards of hygiene in restaurants and cafés should be kept under constant surveillance?

Mr. Millan: The standards are kept under surveillance, as I said in answer to a previous Question. The primary responsibility is with the local authorities, and I am not aware that they are not carrying out their obligations in this respect.

Local Authority Housing

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect on the rate of local authority housebuilding in Scotland of the Scottish Development Department circular 15/69 dated 7th March, 1969.

Dr. Mabon: There was nothing in this circular to affect the rate of new house-building. The guidance given was that housing revenue account deficits should be allowed to increase only to the extent that permitted rent increases did not enable them to be held level.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the extra costs through S.E.T. and the high interest rates faced by local authorities, does not the Minister of State realise that there is a restraint in paragraph 12 of the circular? Will he give an assurance, in the light of what he said, that there is no restriction?

Dr. Mabon: I can give an assurance that there is no restriction. The hon. Gentleman should read paragraph 12

again. Any authority that suggests that it should cut back on new house-building for reasons of financial restraint is misunderstanding the situation and taking an easy way out instead of facing up to the problem of rents and rates.

Bingo Halls (Public Safety and Fire Prevention)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the interests of public safety and fire prevention, he will introduce legislation to enable fire prevention and police officers to enter bingo halls with a view to supervision safety precautions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: The Gaming Act 1968 empowers the police and officers of fire authorities to enter bingo halls licensed under that Act at any reasonable time. The relevant provisions will be brought into operation as soon as the preliminary licensing procedures have been completed.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that this news will be warmly welcomed? Some proprietors of bingo halls are blocking passageways and vestibules with patrons, and in the event of fire there would be danger to members of the public.

Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assurance.

Teachers (Registration)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers in Scotland has so far failed to re-register with the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government now intends to take to deal with the situation resulting from the failure of teachers to register or reregister with the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 21st May to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) except that, according to the announcement of the General Teaching Council on 10th June, 45,270 teachers had by then registered for the year starting on 1st April.—[Vol. 784, c. 85–6.]

Sir J. Gilmour: Does not this mean that many thousands of teachers have failed to re-register, and that the Secretary of State should therefore take urgent steps to reinstate those teachers who have been dismissed for failure to register?

Mr. Ross: It does not follow that these teachers are teachers who are presently teaching in schools. It is to find exactly what the position is that we have undertaken to make inquiries of the education authorities.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How does the Secretary of State justify the situation that teachers who failed to register last year were sacked and are being denied unemployment pay, whereas teachers who have committed the same technical offence this year are being treated totally differently?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the law remains the same, and registration is the proper indication of the qualification of a teacher. That is the law, and that remains the law.

Mr. MacArthur: What information has the right hon. Gentleman so far received from local education authorities on the number of teachers actually in teaching posts who have not registered? Second, does he not agree that recent events have emphasised the need to simplify the re-registration procedure?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I may well agree with the hon. Gentleman's final comment. We do not know the actual numbers involved in the schools at the present time, and this is what we are seeking to find out. A statement on this has been made by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Lawson: If teachers in Scotland persist in showing their hostility to the General Teaching Council, will my right hon. Friend take urgent steps to scrap the Council altogether and restore the previous position?

Mr. Ross: More than 45,000 teachers have shown by their registration that they want the Council. The minority is a very small one, and I hope that before long the minority will be completely negligible. The hon. Gentleman should face the fact that this House passed the

Bill enacting this procedure and there was no vote against it. It was in accordance with the wishes of all sections of the teaching profession that we acceded to the request to legislate.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity.

Health Centres

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health centres were completed in the years 1965–66, 1966–67, and 1967–68; how many are planned for 1968–69; what was the total expenditure involved; and what were the comparable figures in the four years prior to October, 1964.

Mr. Millan: In the three years to 1967–68, five health centres were completed. In 1968–69 three were completed. The total cost of those eight centres was £245,500. In 1969–70 it is hoped that six centres at present under construction will be completed and that work will begin on another thirteen. In the four years prior to October, 1964, one centre was completed at a cost of £20,000.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the entire Scottish population will be highly gratified by the remarkable progress in the building of these centres? Will he undertake to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the location of the 60 centres which he said in the debate on 23rd May were under consideration for approval?

Mr. Millan: Yes, I am sure that creditable progress is now being made. I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend's request and give details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Woodburn: Could the hon. Gentleman say how far the medical profession is co-operating in the work of health centres as health centres and are not using them just as consulting rooms? How does he compare the working of the older health centres with the new developments at Livingston?

Mr. Millan: Before any health centre is agreed and planned it has the support of the doctors who will operate in it. The health centres that I have seen in


operation work on the basis that the general practitioners use the full range of facilities available. I expect this procedure to continue since it is absolutely basic to the whole idea of the health centre.

The following is the information:


Under construction (six)


*Blackburn.
Keith.


*Blackridge.
*Stenhousemuir.


Crieff.
*Thurso.


Plans approved (fourteen)


*Bonnyrigg.
*Lerwick.


*Bridge of Allan.
Rutherglen.


*Broxburn.
*Stoneyburn.


*Dundonald.
*Symington.


*Forres.
*Tillicoultry.


Glasgow, Woodside.
Wick.


Kirkcudbright.
Biggar.


Planning (Thirty-three)


Aberlour.
Glasgow, Royal Infirmary.


Airdrie.


*Alloa.
Grantown.


*Bathgate.
*High Valleyfield.


Brechin.
*Kilcreggan.


Castle Douglas
Kirkcaldy.


Clydebank.
Kirkwall.


Cumbernauld, Central (Phase II).
*Inverbervie.


Jedburgh.


Dumbarton.
Livingston, How-den.


Dundee, Crescent Lane.
*Markinch.


*Newton-Stewart.


East Kilbride, Central.
Perth.


*Renfrew.


*East Kilbride, West-wood.
Rothesay.


*South Queensferry.


*Garelochhead.
St. Andrews.


Glenrothes.
Selkirk.


Glasgow, Gorbals.
*Winchburgh.


Proposals under consideration (Thirty)


*Aberdeen, Denburn.
*Edinburgh, Stock-bridge.


Aberdeen, Forester-hill.
*Edinburgh, Gorgie.


Arbroath.
Falkirk.


*Baillieston.
*Fort William.


*Bishopbriggs.
Glasgow, Govan.


*Blantyre.
Glasgow, Easter-house.


*Bo'ness.


*Burntisland.
Greenock.


Campbeltown.
*Inverurie.


*Culter.
*Leven.


Cupar.
Oban.


Dingwall.
Paisley.


Dumfries.
*Peebles.


Duns.
*Strathaven.


*Edinburgh, Wester Hailes.
*Tayport.


*Wishaw.


NOTES:


* A health centre, provided by a local health authority under powers delegated to them under Section 15(3) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947.

The above list does not include a number of areas where there have been expressions of interest, but as yet no definite proposals for a centre.

Construction Industries (Output)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures of industrial output in Scotland in the construction industries for the years 1964 to 1968 and for the years 1960 to 1964; and how these figures compare with the output in these industries for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Ross: Between 1964 and 1968 output in the construction industry rose by 24 per cent. in volume as compared with 10½ per cent. in the United Kingdom; in the earlier period 1960–64 the comparable figures were 24 per cent. and 21 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving the figures. Could he express work done in Scotland in 1968 as a proportion of the United Kingdom total, and could he say how the proportion has changed since 1960?

Mr. Ross: In 1968 for the first time the output topped the £500 million level. It was £507 million. It was 11·2 per cent. of the total for Great Britain. This compares with 9·7 per cent. in 1964, and 9·4 per cent. in 1960. It is an indication of "full speed ahead" for the construtcion industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how the increased burden of £5 million additional S.E.T. imposed by the recent Budget will contribute to an increase in output in this important industry in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: The figures since 1966 demonstrate that S.E.T. has had no effect in slowing down progress in the construction industry in all the important tasks that it has to undertake in Scotland.

Scottish Universities (Economic Research)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance his Department has been giving to the promotion of research in the Scottish universities in the economic field; and whether he will make a statement.

Dr. Mabon: The Scottish Office has, in recent years, made a number of arrangements for co-operation with Scottish universities in economic research and, since 1964, has directly commissioned 17


research projects in the economic field. Encouragement has also been given to local authorities and other bodies to commission economic research.

Mr. Maclennan: While I welcome this massive support for the study of the economy carried out by Scottish universities, would my hon. Friend agree that a systematic study of the exploitation of Scotland's natural resources, land and sea, mountain and river, would best be undertaken by a university based in the Highlands?

Dr. Mabon: We must use the facilities which exist at present. I would not like to comment on that point at this moment. I accept that since 1964 the greatly increased interest in research into the economy of Scotland reflects the importance of understanding the problems and of marshalling the potential of the Scottish economy.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister say whether part of the promotion of economic research in the universities involves the payment of Scottish university professors to carry out a running examination into vital economic questions so that they may give the Minister advice?

Dr. Mabon: The 17 research projects which are mentioned are estimated to cost £229,000, £193,000 of which the Scottish Office will bear on its Vote. As to the other question of continuing advice to the Secretary of State, the hon. Lady will know that the Secretary of State has economic consultants to give him continuing advice.

Housing Programme

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the reduction of 1,500 houses in the Scottish housing programme in 1968 and in 1969 is being carried out; and how many families on local authority housing lists he estimates will be affected by this cut;
(2) whether he still expects to reach the official target of 50,000 houses a year in Scotland by 1970.

Dr. Mabon: The decision to reduce the number of approvals planned for 1968 and 1969 was announced on 16th January, 1968, but it has not so far been necessary to reject any proposal which was otherwise acceptable.
The targets set in 1965 envisaged a massive expansion of housing, both public and private. Good progress has been made in both sectors, with new records of starts and completions achieved in 1968, but it is unlikely that 50,000 completions will be reached as early as 1970.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister of State not recall that in order to obtain votes, he and his hon. Friends made the pledge of achieving 50,000 houses by 1970? Does he not also recall that the Prime Minister reinforced this pledge by stating that no circumstances, however adverse, would deflect him from this aim? Could the hon. Gentleman advise the House what value we can now place on Government pledges?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must know that this Government, unlike the previous Government which adopted no target at all, adopt real targets, not phoney ones. The target consists of two parts, involving both the public and private sectors. In the public sector we have in the four years 1965 to 1968 approved 135,227 houses, which is 3,000 more than we had planned for in 1965. As for the private sector, I would willingly give figures if hon. Gentlemen opposite can bear to be embarrassed by them.

Mr. Tom McMillan: Would my hon. Friend give some indication of how the target has been affected by the change of administration in Glasgow, which will mean a great reduction in the number of new houses built?

Dr. Mabon: So far it has not been significant, though last year was one of the most disappointing years in terms of building in Glasgow, when we were down by nearly 1,000. This year we are behind by nearly 900 starts. This is entirely due to the present administration.

Mr. Galbraith: How much is the shortfall due to too few private houses being built in Glasgow? Why does the Minister not encourage more people to build private houses, ask local authorities to charge rents appropriate to people's earnings, and get mortgages down to a more reasonable level?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member has put his finger on the point about the private sector. Despite the fact that


last year we built 8,719 houses, the highest figure since 1934; despite the fact that in the last year we have seen starts of 9,918 houses in the private sector, again a high figure, it is nowhere near the 12,000 which the private sector was expecting to build by the calendar year 1970.

Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that had hon. Members opposite achieved anything near the rate of building that we have achieved we would, by this time, have housed a further 250,000 people?

Dr. Mabon: This is a friendly and healthy rivalry which both sides should enter into and maintain. Unfortunately, the party opposite were active in this matter for only a few years and then, for a decade they let Scotland slip behind in housing.

Mr. Wylie: Is not one of the problems the shortage of land zoned for residential development? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to ease that problem?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, it is true that in the 13 years very little was done in Scotland, but fortunately, through the efforts of the working party of private builders and the much-derided Land Commission, which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to destroy, we have tried to seek more land to be zoned for residential occupation. We hope to be successful.

Mr. Younger: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply. I should like to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Historic Buildings

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money was spent last year on historic buildings; and how this compares with the amount spent in the years 1963 and 1964.

Dr. Mabon: Expenditure on grants recommended by the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland was £82,500 in the financial year 1968–69; and £36,900 in 1962–63, £27,000 in 1963–64 and £33,800 in 1964–65.

Mr. McMillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in Scotland know the economic difficulties and will appreciate the figures which he has given?

Dr. Mabon: I am obliged for what my hon. Friend has said. We recognise the immense heritage in these buildings.

Building (Alnwickhill, Edinburgh)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his decision about building in the Alnwickhill area of Edinburgh.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: When my right hon. Friend has received and considered the report of the public local inquiry which was held in April.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will the Minister remember the importance of open spaces in Edinburgh, and when he comes to examine the case will he remember the expense to which my constituents have been put, not only in this inquiry but in a previous one only three years ago?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir. We would hope to receive this report in about a month's time.

Transport (Edinburgh Area)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Edinburgh Corporation about transport problems in the city and in surrounding areas; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend has asked Edinburgh Corporation, like other urban authorities, to prepare a comprehensive traffic and transport plan as a basis for traffic managements schemes and the allocation of grants for road improvements, and the Government are financially assisting the transportation and environmental study of the central area of the city.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I am glad to hear that, but when will these proposals be forthcoming? Does the Minister realise that traffic problems in Edinburgh are getting steadily worse? In his consideration, will he bear in mind the possibility of bringing back the local railways?

Dr. Mabon: I expected that last supplementary question. However, to comment on his first point, the hon. Gentleman knows how anxious my right hon. Friend has been to encourage Edinburgh to carry out two studies, and the city


has agreed to do so. The transport side will cost £160,000, of which we shall contribute £60,000. The environmental side will cost £100,000, and the Department will contribute up to £50,000 of that. As for the railways, the hon. Gentleman knows that the intention of British Railways to retain only the main corridors has been supported by the East-Central Scotland Survey already. But it is a fair comment, and we shall take it into account.

Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the abolition of fee-paying in Edinburgh schools will contribute considerably to the solution of the peak hour traffic problem in Edinburgh?

Scottish Economic Planning Council

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discontinue the Scottish Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate that the council consists of extremely busy and distinguished men, but how can that body consider the future economic planning of Scotland if it meets only for about 15 hours a year?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Economic Planning Council is of great help to me in advising on a wide range of matters. It works on the basis of three committees, concerned with regional, industrial and transport questions. When it comes to the actual council meeting, a considerable amount of the work has already been done. The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should appreciate the value of its work in relation to the colliery closure programme and the special development area and the urgency that it stressed to me and other Departments of the need for getting new industry into his area.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total time he spent during 1968 in the Chair during sessions of the Scottish Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Ross: About 15 hours.

Mr. Campbell: Since the Secretary of State is in the chair at meetings of a body whose task is to advise him, is he satisfied that this is the best arrange-

ment and that the full potential of the council is being used?

Mr. Ross: If we try to judge upon the basis of the number of hours we shall get a wrong impression. The importance of the work that is done is immeasurable. The work done by the committees concerned with regional, industrial and transport matters has proved invaluable. When one remembers the advice that I am given in one hour of Scottish Questions and the amount of information which can be imparted in that time, one appreciates the value of 15 hours of purposeful work by men of the quality of the members of the Economic Planning Council. It is quite wrong to deride the council in the terms that the hon. Gentleman used.

Mrs. Ewing: As the deputy chairman of the Economic Planning Council has said that he does not believe that there is such a thing as the Scottish economy—and I trust that that is not the view of the Secretary of State—can he assure us that he personally will be in the chair at all sessions of this body, if it is to continue, and, failing that, at least that a deputy chairman who believes in the Scottish economy will be appointed?

Mr. Ross: The present deputy chairman has done more for the Scottish economy and for Scottish working people than any member of the hon. Lady's party has done. I regard her attack on him as quite unworthy. He serves without pay and does his work extremely well.

Scottish Police Federation (Secretary of State's Speech)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his official meeting with the Scottish Police Federation at Rothesay on 2nd May.

Mr. Ross: At the invitation of the Scottish Police Federation, I addressed delegates to their annual general meeting and spoke on a number of subjects, among them crime prevention, traffic, civilianisation, crimes of violence and pay.

Mr. Hamilton: Did the police discuss with my right hon. Friend the serious shortage of police throughout the country and, further, did he discuss with them


the controversial matter concerning the powers of search, on which, incidentally, I agree with the Scottish Office? Can he say anything further about that?

Mr. Ross: We did not discuss to any extent the powers of search, although it is a matter which has been discussed on past occasions. The shortage of police and the need to get them up to establishment is one of the matters to which we give attention at our annual meeting.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the widespread anxiety about the shortage of police and the alleged increase in crime, will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing an authoritative White Paper on the situation? A great many statistics which are produced appear to depend upon what base year one takes. It would help in these vital and controversial matters to have an authoritative statement on how he sees the situation.

Mr. Ross: This is a relevant point. When I spoke to the police I said that there was something of the "numbers game" in all these statistics, where a base year was picked, neglecting changes which had taken place as a result of Bills concerned with such matters as capital murder, and varying factors of all kinds. It might be worth considering, in the light of our interest in this problem.

Multi-Storey Buildings

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement on the results of his Department's discussions with local authorities in Scotland on the responsibility for payments to cover expenses made necessary by the strengthening of certain multi-storey buildings.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Government have offered to meet 40 per cent. of the cost of strengthening work and of incidental expenses.

Mr. Campbell: Is not 40 per cent. much less than was expected? How can the Government justify an offer of so small a percentage when neither the Scottish local authorities nor the ratepayers can be held responsible for these costs?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot accept that last comment. These houses are the property

of the local authorities and the ratepayers concerned. As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it may be true that people expected more. However, the 40 per cent. is broadly in line with the Government's share of new building, as represented by the current subsidy, which was revised recently.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: What proportion of the total estimated cost is to be borne by Glasgow?

Dr. Mabon: Without notice, I cannot say. There are about 170 blocks, or 12,000 houses, in large panel construction in Scotland, but they do not all need strengthening, so it is difficult to make the calculation.

Mr. Galbraith: Why should the local authorities be burdened with the major share of the cost of putting matters right? After all, the Government encouraged local authorities to build houses of this kind.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. The Government compelled no local authoritiy to build any single multistorey block. In my experience, we have had to discourage local authorities from overdoing multi-storey building, and Glasgow is one example.

Rating (Agricultural Buildings)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to remove the anomaly by which rates have to be paid on a building containing fattening pigs, but not on one adjoining it which houses store pigs.

Mr. Buchan: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend is considering the issues raised by the rating of intensive livestock buildings. He hopes that his consideration will be completed fairly soon and he will announce his decision as soon as he is in a position to do so.

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this is not a matter which concerns only intensive units? It goes far beyond now. Is he further aware that we are giving him every possible encouragement to make the statement, the expectation of which raised the hopes of farmers, as evidenced in their publication the other day which was headed, "A Statement At Last"? We are


anxious to help him. Can we be assured that he will not allow his right hon. Friend to make him wait for Wheatley before doing so?

Mr. Buchan: If I may say so, that last aspect can be dismissed with contempt. The hon. Gentleman says that his right hon. and hon. Friends are anxious to give us every opportunity to make a statement. What he really means is that they will seek every opportunity at Question Time to put down these very complex Questions. He is not so naive as not to know many of the difficulties in this matter, and we want to come up with the right answer.

Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if there is to be any increase in the rates being borne by other people, it ought not to be of such a nature that the farmers, for instance, gain at the expense of others?

Mr. Buchan: All aspects of this problem will be taken into consideration, including the point put forward by my hon. Friend.

Wind-blown Timber

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the clearing of wind-blown timber.

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the timber blown down in the January 1968 gale still remains to be cleared both in Forestry Commission and in private woodlands.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: At 31st March, 46 per cent. of the Forestry Commission's timber and 51 per cent. of the timber in the private sector had been cleared and despatched to markets. On the recommendation of the Windblow Action Group, I have agreed that the transport allowances which were due to end on 30th September should be extended to 31st December.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that we are, therefore, falling even further behind with the programme? In December of last year, if the programme was to be completed by September, it required an increase of 6 per cent. every

month, and we are far behind that. Will it not be two years instead of 18 months before we get this job done, very largely due to the inevitable complacency which the hon. Gentleman insists on showing?

Dr. Mabon: I think that is a most unworthy remark.
I accept that we have been disappointed to some extent by the progress so far. We have been very short of labour, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but we expect that most of the timber will be cleared by the spring of 1970. As the hon. Gentleman also knows, the risk of fungal and insect damage in the winter is pretty negligible.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied about the spring of next year being the last date and 31st December as the right date for ending the transport subsidy?

Dr. Mabon: These are our aims, in view of what was mentioned earlier about pledges and targets. We can only rely on those working there to try to help us. The claims for movement on the concessions so far have been 142,000 tons of saw logs and 27,000 tons of chipwood and pulp at a total cost of £132,000. But I take the point and will look into it.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the Minister aware that last year imports of all forms of timber were at the staggeringly high figure of £643 million? Does he realise that investment grants for harvesting machinery for forestry produce would go a long way immediately to assisting our balance of payments position?

Dr. Mabon: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman making the point, but it is fast becoming like King Charles's head. I have no doubt that we shall discuss this matter again.

Mr. Manuel: Concerning the sale of wind-blown timber, will the Minister of State inform the House whether there are any difficulties being met in disposing of it and whether wind-blown timber of the size needed is being taken up in the areas near enough to the pulp mill?

Dr. Mabon: There is no lack of demand for wind-blown timber. That is not one of our problems. The real problem is shortage of labour.

Closures and Redundancies (Scottish Economic Planning Council)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for the Scottish Economic Planning Council to consider at short notice developments, particularly those involving prospective closures and redundancies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: The Scottish Economic Planning Council's terms of reference make it clear that its primary function is to advise me on the formulation and implementation of plans for the Scottish economy. In exercising this rôle it can and does advise me on the implications of industrial change. This does not, however, require it to become involved in the specific details of the affairs of individual firms.

Mr. Willis: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether there is a case for extending the functions of the council to include being able to meet and to offer assistance concerning sudden changes not simply of single firms but groups of firms and industries?

Mr. Ross: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the council can meet urgently where necessary. I can think of one case recently when it did so. But it would be wrong to expect or to think that it ought to take over the executive functions of the Government or of other institutions that have been established by the Government.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Has the Secretary of State seriously considered the possibility of appointing a chairman of the council, because the right hon. Gentleman is obviously involved in so much else? This would enable the council to be much more active than at present.

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the council is very active indeed. I have a very good understudy in the vice-chairman, Mr. George Middleton, who is pretty well known in Scotland as the former General Secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Council. I do not think that is a problem. I understand that the council's members value the fact that when they are giving advice to the Secretary of State they are

giving it directly to him when he is in the chair.

Regional Water Boards (Staff)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of staff employed in the new regional water boards set up under the Water (Scotland) Act 1968; and what was the number of staff employed prior to the passing of the Act.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: This information is not centrally available.

Mr. Buchanan: I am disappointed to hear that, because these water boards were set up some time ago. I thought that some reduction in the staff was part and parcel of the improvement in the administration of the water boards set up under the Water (Scotland) Act, 1968.

Dr. Mabon: As an expert, my hon. Friend knows that there is no requirement in law that the water boards should tell the Secretary of State what the staff returns are. While I take the point that we would expect some reduction in clerical and financial staff in avoiding duplication and more economic use of consultants, I think we must accept that some undertakings which have been taken over are in a run-down state which would shame some Members of this House.

Mr. Stodart: Can the Minister of State give me any reason, increase or decrease of staff or not, why, in the first year of the water boards, although I have used 10,000 gallons of water less, my water bill has gone up by three times?

Dr. Mabon: I will restrain myself from using the word "lousy" in that regard in conformity with the past in this House, but the hon. Gentleman knows I cannot discuss his affairs in public. We all know the reason why—at least those of us who are aware of the correspondence—but it would not be fair to the hon. Gentleman to divulge it.

University Hospitals Board

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to set up a University Hospitals Board as recommended by the Royal Commission on Medical Education.

Mr. Millan: This recommendation requires to be considered in the context of proposals for the future organisation of health services generally.

Mr. Buchanan: I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider this point very seriously. With rapid advances in medical techniques and sophisticated operational techniques, would not the granting of funds and skills be more fairly allocated under such a University Teaching Hospitals Board?

Mr. Millan: We will consider this recommendation and other recommendations of the Royal Commission very carefully indeed, but I do not think that I can give an answer now. My hon. Friend will be aware that the present set-up in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales. Therefore, there are considerable implications in what the Royal Commission has recommended.

Betterment Levy

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total amount collected by the Land Commission to date in levies upon the disposal of assets where no profit arose to the person or persons who made the disposal.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Information about betterment levy, if any, collected in these circumstances is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is a most unsatisfactory answer in view of the outrageous injustice involved in this sort of application of the levy. Is the Minister of State aware that, despite the fact that this sort of blood sucking is going on, the Land Commission to date has cost £80,000 more to run than it has brought in in revenue? Is it not the height of lunacy to keep such an operation going for a single day longer?

Dr. Mabon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will not take my advice in particular cases when I urged him, if he remembers, that negotiations should continue. I cannot help feeling that he is using these situations for party political propaganda. It is wrong to make sweeping generalisations like this, particularly at this time when the Land

Commission is working so hard on this matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend realise that land prices around the aluminium smelter site have trebled and are likely to go on increasing? Will the Scottish Office take immediate steps to get the Land Commission to buy up that land to ensure that the profits arising from public investment come back to the public?

Dr. Mabon: Off the cuff I could not make an acknowledgment on precisely that point, but I am aware that the Land Commission is engaged in negotiations in that area in support of infrastructure, if not of the actual industrial plant itself.

Iron-ore Terminal, Hunterston

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has now received for building an ore terminal near Hunterston, Ayrshire.

Mr. John Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had, and what consultations have taken place, regarding the proposal to develop an iron-ore terminal at Hunterston.

Mr. Ross: I have received no proposals for the construction of an ore terminal at or near Hunterston. I understand, however, that Ayr county planning committee has recommended the county council to submit to me amendments of the county development plan proposing the zoning of an area at Hunterston for industry. This would provide for, among other things, an iron ore terminal if required. If this amendment comes forward, it will be considered under the normal statutory procedures, which afford full opportunity for consultation and representations.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider how much more the terminal might cost, when he gets proposals, if it were sited at Ardrossan rather than Hunterston? Will he take into account the lower infrastructure cost at Ardrossan, and also the greater cost in terms of social amenity at Hunterston, a very valuable area for the working population of Scotland when it goes on holiday, which will be destroyed?

Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amendment would have to be advertised, objectors would have the right to pursue their objections at a public inquiry, and thereafter it would be a matter for me. It would be unwise at this stage for me to be decisive in respect of alternative sites, but all these relevant considerations will I am sure, be taken into account in the further progress.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Rankin—Mr. Gordon Campbell.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any special arrangements are now necessary—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order will cost time from Question Time.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, surely my point of order is quite legitimate in view of the fact that I distinctly heard you call me and instead there rose the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), who in no way whatsoever resembles me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought I called half the hon. Member!

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was a second Question, No. 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson). I thought that the other Question was about to be called, so I naturally waited.
I was asking the Secretary of State whether he considered that special arrangements were now necessary for the planning and co-ordination of projects expected round the Clyde estuary arising from the deep water, which is increasing in value as an asset there, particularly because so many bodies and local authorities are concerned, and as we are in a period when both local authorities and the planning procedures are being changed.

Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that it is because we were aware of the importance for a very much wider area that we brought together the planning authorities and had a special study leading to the Metra Report, but here we are dealing with action which has to be

taken, and the initiative rests, and must rest, with the Ayr County Council planning authority.

Teacher Shortage

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to deal with the teacher shortage in Scottish schools.

Mr. Millan: Recruitment of teachers is being increased as a result of various measures, including a considerable expansion in places at colleges of education. A scheme of inducement payments to teachers in designated schools of severe shortage was introduced last year, and I am consulting authorities and other appropriate bodies about possible means of improving further the distribution of teachers.

Mr. Rankin: As the shortage of teachers is being seriously increased, is it not now imperative that my hon. Friend should have another look at this problem of the registration and re-registration of teachers? Does he realise that this is only going to make the problem infinitely worse in view of the fact that it is said authoritatively that so far about 10,000 teachers in Scotland have not registered?

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend earlier today answered Questions about registration. I could not accept the figure quoted by my hon. Friend, or anything like it. I do not believe that this has had an effect on teacher recruitment or on teacher shortage.

Mr. MacArthur: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the shortage of teachers will be when the school-leaving age is raised, and can he also say what steps the Government are taking to overcome this shortage?

Mr. Millan: I could not give a figure offhand, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the recent study which we have published with regard to staffing in secondary schools that there must be some considerable doubt about the figures of teacher shortages which were brought out previously from the returns made by local education authorities. One of the things that we are working on now is a way of getting much more accurate estimates of teacher demand than we have had up to the present.

Murco Project

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much new infrastructure, such as roads, will be required for the Murco project; and what he estimates will be the cost to public funds.

Mr. Ross: Until it is known whether the project will go ahead, and, if so, in what form, I cannot make such an estimate on a realistic basis.

Mr. Galbraith: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give any estimate of the additional infrastructure costs, will he say what he thinks the cost of new jobs by way of grant will be, so that we may know what each job will be costing the taxpayer?

Mr. Ross: That again will depend on the ultimate form of the project if it goes ahead. I think that it would be wrong to work on a hypothetical basis at the present time when we are awaiting the report of the inquiry.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In considering this project, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the comments of the Hunt Committee and also the National Institute recently that we have had an excessive development of capital-intensive as opposed to labour-intensive industries in development areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this project would fall precisely into that context?

Mr. Ross: That may be true of certain parts, but I know many parts of Scotland which would welcome even capital-intensive industry.

Jordanhill College School, Glasgow

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will approve the integration of Jordanhill College School into the comprehensive system proposed for other fee-paying and selective schools in Glasgow.

Mr. Millan: I have nothing to add at present to the answer given on 1st April to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small).—[Vol. 781, c. 80.]

Mr. Rankin: Surely the time has come for us to make up our minds about the

comprehensive system? Am I to infer from my hon. Friend's answer that some form of dilution is going to work along with the system itself?

Mr. Millan: No, Sir. I think it would be a mistake to infer that. The Government a long time ago made up their mind about the comprehensive system. What we have now asked for in the case of this school is that the governors of the college should look at the school in the context of these developments in Glasgow. This they are doing, and I am expecting proposals from them.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have received strong representations from many of my constituents demanding that this excellent Jordanhill School should be left alone, and will he therefore resist any blandishments from his hon. Friend, and from anybody else, to change its present set-up?

Mr. Millan: No, Sir. This school is selective and fee-paying. It is very largely financed by the Scottish Education Department, and I have no intention of leaving it alone.

Skiing Enterprises

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the rate burden carried by skiing enterprises in Scotland and what reply he has sent.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Only one, from the hon. Member about the assessment of the Glenshee chairlift, to which I replied on 16th April.

Selective Employment Tax (New Jobs)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to revise his estimate of the numbers of new jobs to be provided by 1970 in the manufacturing, construction, and service industries, respectively, following the increase in the rates of selective employment tax.

Mr. Ross: None.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promised increase has not taken place, and that instead there has been a sharp fall in employment in Scotland in every one of these sectors? Will the right hon.


Gentleman stop pretending that S.E.T. is good for Scotland and use his influence at last and belatedly to get rid of this wretched and damaging tax?

Mr. Ross: I think we have heard all that before, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will say that he has heard my reply before. The facts in broad terms are that the total number of new jobs created in Scotland since 1964 is in line with the forecast in the White Paper, and we are providing jobs at almost twice the rate of the previous four years by our action.

Nursery School Places

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursery school places there are at present in the Hamilton constituency and Lanarkshire, respectively; and what plans he has to increase these numbers.

Mr. Millan: There are 72 places in the Hollandbush Nursery School, Hamilton, and 45 places in Coatholme Nursery School, Coatbridge. Under the first phase of the Government's urban programme two new projects for nursery schools at Cambuslang and Viewpark, Uddingston, are being planned.

Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful for the news that new ones are planned, but would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is universally accepted that nursery school education helps to cure early personality defects and avoid later criminality? Would he not agree that one in the constituency of Hamilton is not sufficient? Would he look again at his plans with a view to stepping up this programme?

Mr. Millan: I agree that it would be very desirable to have an expansion of nursery education in Lanarkshire and elsewhere, and this is something which I hope we shall be able to tackle in due course, but there have been many other priorities, unfortunately, in the education programme over these last few years.

Emigration

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of his Department are engaged in studying the problems of emigration from Scotland.

Mr. Ross: Several officials of my Departments contribute to work on the problems of emigration.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that soon after I came to this House after my election I had an assurance from the Minister of State, on a television programme with a likely audience of a million viewers, that a working group had been set up to inquire into emigration? As there seems to have been a cloak of secrecy over the findings of this group on one of the most important problems of Scotland, could we now have some information about its findings?

Mr. Ross: As I have told the hon. Lady before, over the last year 15 officials of Scottish Departments have regularly attended meetings of the Scottish Economic Planning Board's working group on population as part of their normal duties. This work continues and will continue.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REDCLIFFE-MAUD REPORT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, which is published today. In addition to the three volumes of the full Report, the Commission has written a shorter version, and all these have been laid before the House.
It is a great achievement to have dealt so thoroughly with so important and complex a subject and to have made such comprehensive recommendations in the short space of three years. We owe a great debt to Lord Redcliffe-Maud and his colleagues.
The main structure of English local government has remained virtually unchanged since the Acts of 1888 and 1894, which created the present system of county councils, county boroughs and county district councils.
The dominating theme of the Report is a radical redrawing of local authority boundaries, not merely to reduce the numbers but, even more important, to end the division between town and country and recognise the requirements of planning and communications in the modern age.
The Report proposes a completely new administrative map of England outside Greater London, divided into 61 new local government areas. In 58 of them, a single authority would be responsible for all services. In the three metropolitan areas round Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, however, responsibility for services would be divided in each case between a metropolitan authority, whose key functions would be planning, transportation and major development, together with police and other services requiring authorities of this size, and a number of metropolitan district councils, whose key functions would be education, housing and the local authority personal social services.
The significance of these proposals can be measured by the fact that 81 main authorities would assume the functions of 124 county and county borough councils and over 1,000 county district councils in England outside Greater London. These new main authorities as well as those in Greater London would appoint representatives to sit on eight provincial councils, whose primary task would be to draw up the provincial strategy and planning framework which would become binding on the main authorities. In the Royal Commission's view, areas as big as provinces would not be appropriate for the operation of local government services. They suggest that it must be left to the Commission on the Constitution to consider whether the provincial councils should assume functions now discharged by central Government.
Below the main authorities there would be local councils. These councils would represent local opinion and wishes, they would be consulted on matters of special interest to their inhabitants and they would have the power to do a number of things best done locally.
Three commissioners have reservations about the pattern of authorities in certain areas; two would prefer to see rather more main authorities and one would prefer rather fewer. A fourth commissioner, Mr. Senior, while agreeing with the principle of new local authority areas embracing both town and country, differs substantially from his colleagues on the implementation of this concept, and has put forward alternative proposals.
I can say at once that the Government accept in principle the main recommend-

ations of the Report, which state that a major rationalisation of local government is called for, that there should be a very marked reduction in the number of units with executive responsibility and that the anachronistic division between town and country should be ended. A new structure is needed which will permit services to be provided more efficiently than is possible at present, and which will, at the same time, create a more effective system of local democracy. A reorganisation which achieved these aims would open the way for more devolution in decision-making on issues which at present fall within the decision of central Government.
It is the Government's aim to reach decisions on these main structural reforms as soon as possible, and they will, therefore, enter into consultations on the basis of the Commission's proposals. In so doing, we shall wish to have regard to the separate proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales and the forthcoming report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland.
The House will have noted the Commission's recommendations on provincial councils. The Government will be reviewing the future of economic planning in the regions, including the future of the Regional Economic Planning Councils, in the light both of the Commission's recommendations and of the valuable work done by the present Councils.
The process of consultation will, naturally, take some time. We intend it to be thorough. Subject to this we intend to press ahead quickly with a view to bringing a Bill before Parliament as soon as possible. It is important that the period of uncertainty should be kept to the minimum. The legislation will, of course, contain provisions to safeguard the interests of local authority staff and there will need to be full consultation with the various staff associations in due course.
As the recommendations of the Report have major implications for a number of Departments concerned with local government, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio to accept responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's consideration of the Report and of the Report of the


Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland, when that is received. The local authority and other consultations on the Redcliffe-Maud Report will, of course, be carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government with the co-operation of other Ministers when matters affecting their Departments are at issue.
The Commission has put forward proposals for the most far-reaching reorganisation of local government the country has ever seen. The legislation towards the end of the 19th century which created new county boroughs and urban and rural districts was, in many ways, a rationalisation and extension of what existed already. The earlier development of local government, right back to the Middle Ages, was gradual and piecemeal. In the last generation, we have tried to bring the structure up to date by limited modifications. Radical and widespread changes are overdue The Commission's Report, I believe the House will agree, faces up to this challenge and, in its turn, presents the House, the Government and the country with an opportunity and a challenge, which we for our part intend to accept.

Mr. Heath: I join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing our thanks to Lord Redcliffe-Maud and his colleagues for the work which they have done in producing this Report. It is a monumental work in three main volumes, which has only just come into the possession of the House, and we for our part will need to study it carefully. I should have thought that the whole House needed time to study it before coming to any preliminary judgment upon the Report, let alone making any emotional reaction to it. The Government are to hold consultations and we naturally want to do the same, certainly before we debate this matter.
I have three major questions. First, can the right hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what he means by saying that the Government "accept in principle" the main recommendations of the Report. Does this mean that they accept the three-tier structure proposed by the Commission? Do they accept the powers which it is proposed to allocate to this structure, or are they merely saying that they accept in principle the need for

reform of local government in which there will be a smaller number of authorities, able to remove the difference between town and country and provide services in a democratic way? It is very important to know whether the Government accept the precise structure and powers recommended.
Secondly, how do the Government now propose to handle the question of the finance of local government, all the questions about which now come up again as a result of this Commission?
Thirdly, the Prime Minister emphasised that consultations will, naturally, take some time: he said that the Government "intend to be thorough". Can he tell us what is the Government's estimate of the time scale involved? By what date do they at present visualise that whatever changes are made will be implemented? Would it be fair to say that, even on the most optimistic assessment, such changes are unlikely to be implemented in practice before 1974?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the whole House will need a lot of time to consider the Report, which is very far-reaching in its proposals and contains a great deal of detail and argument. A lot of time will certainly be needed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for every hon. Member as well as for the parties to have such consultations as seem appropriate to them. The question of a debate, to which he referred, can perhaps best be discussed through the usual channels in the normal way, but in such a way as to allow time for that reading of the Report, thought and consultation.
The right hon. Gentleman questioned my use of the phrase "acceptance in principle." The phrase was related in my statement to the need for a fundamental reorganisation, for a substantial reduction in the number of main authorities and for the abolition of the distinction—which is rather artificial these days—between town and country.
It does not mean acceptance in detail of, for example, all aspects of the three-tier structure, another point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. There will be a lot of argument and controversy about the position of the smaller councils, whose rôle I briefly summarised. I could well


imagine—it would obviously be wrong to draw a conclusion from this—that in the case of the three conurbations, the three main metropolitan authorities, many people will, perhaps, contest the view of the Royal Commission that education should be in the hands of the secondary authorities and not in the hands of the main conurbation authority.
Remembering the arguments that occurred in London, and which had to be put right by a Bill in 1965, this is obviously a matter of controversy about which it would be wrong to jump to conclusions until we have had full consultations, particularly with those areas.
The question of finance, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is referred to in the Report. The Commission has not put forward specific recommendations and is leaving this, in part, to the recommendations of the Crowther Commission. Naturally, many hon. Members have in debate put forward suggestions particularly for the financing of provincial councils. I recall such suggestions being advanced in the debate on the last Queen's Speech, when hon. Members gave their views of what should occur if provincial councils were set up. The Government are at work on the question of the financial reform of local government. Necessarily, we could not make progress on this matter until we saw the shape of local government as recommended by Redcliffe-Maud; and we could then decide in the light of consultations.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about the time schedule, it is difficult at this stage to make firm estimates. Consultations with local authorities on the aspects of structure to which I referred as being appropriate for consultation, and on the question of boundaries, on which many different views will be expressed, particulary locally, need to take place. Without tying myself to a timetable, I believe the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion of 1974 to be unduly pessimistic.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: What effect will this Report have on the implementation of the proposals contained in the White Paper on Wales?

The Prime Minister: The position from the point of view of Wales was explained

by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in an Answer which he gave on 21st November to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert). The preparation of legislation for Wales is proceeding on the basis of the 1967 White Paper. However, I think it right to provide, and this we are providing, that local authorities in Wales and the local authority associations representing Wales should have a further opportunity to comment on the Welsh proposals in the light of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals.
If, for example, Redcliffe-Maud has put forward ideas which anybody in Wales thinks might be embodied in the Welsh legislation, it is open to him to make representations to the Secretary of State. On the other hand, if he thinks that the Redcliffe-Maud Commission has rejected certain concepts in the proposed Welsh legislation, then, again, it is right for him to use those arguments in making representations. To that extent, consultations will continue in the light of the new information and ideas which have been put forward by Redcliffe-Maud.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While recognising that this is a vast Report which is of immense importance to the whole country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that those who are most affected locally by its consequences will be made fully aware of what the real consequences are for them? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore arrange not only for a shortened version of the Report to be made available, but for a popular version, applying to all the areas affected, to be made available?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the opening comments of the hon. Gentleman about the great importance of this matter and the fact that there should be the fullest consultation and, therefore, the fullest possible information given. This, of course, applies not only to councillors, aldermen and others affected by the Report, but to the electors of those areas and the staffs of their local authorities.
I shall certainly give consideration, with my right hon. Friends, to his question whether it would be possible to produce something on a more localised basis. I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind something along the lines of a short


summary of the proposals, with more detail in respect of the individual localities. Of course, the maps exist and the volume, which sets out the detailed recommendations, will be available. Indeed, I would be surprised if they were not already in print or being printed and are urgently being read in local newspapers this afternoon.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While accepting the need for a detailed study of these important proposals, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that it is also important that we should have a quite early debate on the general principles involved in these recommendations so as to avoid our dwindling into nothing more than parochial special pleading?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was really aimed at that thought. I was agreeing with what he said; that there should be long enough for hon. Members to study the Report, to have such consultations as they feel it right to have and that there should then be a general debate. Certainly, I do not believe that we should wait for all the consultations with all those concerned, with all the local authorities on boundaries, and so on, before the House expresses its view. Indeed, the views of hon. Members on these various matters will be valuable before those consultations get under way.
I think, therefore, that the answer to this question is that there should be long enough to enable hon. Members to read and to enable them to have quick consultations—that is, long enough for both hon. Members generally and for the parties—and that then we should have a general debate on the principles, before we get to the detailed consultations.

Mr. Lubbock: While not disputing the truth of the general propositions advanced by the Prime Minister in his statement, or the analysis of the Royal Commission, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that grave disappointment will be felt throughout the country over two aspects of the Report? The first is that the eight provincial councils should be appointed and not elected, which is contradictory to the

principle of extending democracy. The second is the fact that no proposal is contained in the Report for the devolution of power to the regions, a matter which is to be left to the Constitutional Commission. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these are serious defects in the Report which will cause universal disappointment?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, whose views on this question are well known to the House, should feel disappointed about this. I should have thought that he would have welcomed the emphasis in the Report on provincial councils. The question whether, at the end of the day, the provincial councils will be nominated or elected bodies is, as I read it, left open by the Commission. The matter is left for consideration by the Constitutional Commission.
The House should recall that the terms of reference of the Constitutional Commission provide that Parliament can take action ahead of that Commission's report. In the light of the consultations, we should consider whether to make a leap in one jump towards elected provincial councils, or whether they should be appointed, or partially appointed, councils, functioning for an interim period. I would not have thought this to be a retrograde step, but an important move forward.

Mr. MacDermot: I thank my right hon. Friend for the positive reception which the Government have given to the Report. Will he answer two questions? First, will the consultations which have taken place also include consultations about the alternative proposals put forward by Mr. Senior? Secondly, is it proposed to request the Constitutional Commission to give urgent consideration to the matters in that Report, which seem to relate to its discussions, so that decisions will not be unduly held up in awaiting the report of the Constitutional Commission?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's comments is that the consultations, whether with individual authority or local authority associations, can cover the views of those consulted on the alternative steps which have been put forward,


either in some of the dissenting paragraphs of individual commissioners or in the main dissenting Report of Mr. Senior. All of those views can be advanced and pressed by those who agree with those dissenting views.
Secondly, on the question of delay in the Commission, the Commission will take full cognisance of what is important in connection with its work, but that need not and ought not to hold up the work of the Government and the House in implementing the Royal Commission's Report, with such changes as, after consultation, we feel it right to make.
I cannot stress sufficiently clearly the need to avoid a long period of delay, which would not only create uncertainty as between local authorities in relation to their boundaries, their electors, and so on, but could also mean that important decisions which have to be taken on such things as the provision of land for housing in a particular area, planning decisions, roads, and the rest, could be held up for a number of years if we did not proceed with all reasonable speed, subject to the necessity for adequate consultation.

Mr. Woodnutt: While I accept that rationalisation is undoubtedly necessary, would not the Prime Minister agree that if this Report were accepted in its entirety it would remove the franchise from isolated areas like the Isle of Wight? That being so, could he not agree now that we ought to consider extending the idea of metropolitan districts beyond the areas of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester?

The Prime Minister: I would be doubtful about the recommendation in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. With regard to the earlier part, I would not jump into agreeing with his first conclusion. If anything, my reading would push me the other way. But it is a matter in which we must have consultation with the local authorities concerned, including the local authorities responsible for the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Barnett: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is urgently necessary to announce the date of implementation as soon as possible, in view

of the urgent need, for example, for change in local government finance and organisation? Can my right hon. Friend expand on what he said to the Leader of the Opposition about the date, 1974, being unduly pessimistic? Could he also say more about local taxation and the Commission's recommendation that there should be an examination in this field? Is it intended to set up a new committee, or does the Government simply intend to come out with their own report fairly soon?

The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's first supplementary question, I have given reasons, which I think that the House will accept, for reasonable urgency in this matter. We shall provide for consultation as quickly as we can, and as soon as the local authorities and local authority associations have had time to read and study the Report and work out the implications, with the idea—the debate will, of course, come before the Government statement in the form of a White Paper is made—of producing a White Paper before the end of the year on the structure, and so on.
We shall, of course, take account of views expressed in that debate. There is no reason why informal discussion of boundaries should not start ahead—and I hope that the boundary discussions will not take as long as they have in the past—with a view to proposals being produced ahead of the date mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. We shall, as a Government, bring forward proposals on finance as soon as the working party's report is complete. It is probably more in the field of provincial council expenditure that we might expect to receive the most help from the Constitutional Commission.

Mr. Turton: Does the Prime Minister realise that the value of the main proposals cannot be properly judged until the Government make decisions on the extent to which Whitehall can decentralise administrative and financial powers? Will he publish a White Paper as soon as possible setting out the Government's attitude to those two points?

The Prime Minister: It is right that we should have consultation before the White Paper is published, but I believe that the further analysis of the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman


is one which could very well form one of the central themes of the debate we shall hold. I remember particularly a speech made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) during the debate on the Gracious Speech, in which he produced some very far-reaching proposals on the question of finance in relation to provincial councils.
With regard to the general question of devaluation, one of the exciting things about the Redcliffe-Maud Report is that it holds out hope of local authority units sufficiently large, effective and efficient to be able to decentralise more from Whitehall to local authorities. This would, perhaps, apply more particularly in the case of the conurbations, and might apply as soon as we are clear in our minds about what should be the functions of the provincial councils.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would my right hon. Friend, while putting this proper emphasis on the need for speed, appreciate the special problem of local government staffs, many of whom feel uncertainty so acutely that recruitment is very difficult? Would he consider making some offer of permanent status to transferred local government staffs above certain ranks so as to retain them in the interim period? Further, would he consider the extension of the provincial council principle to Scotland irrespective of the Wheatley Report, because the case for that principle in this Report is even more valid in the case of Scotland?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will have noticed that I referred in my opening statement to the importance of these staffs, and to the fact that we shall have to embark on consultation with the staff associations as soon as possible. Until we have done that, it will not be possible to come to any such conclusion as he has mentioned. The arguments for avoiding undue delay apply just as much in human terms—perhaps even more—in terms of staffs of local authorities.
As to the other considerations, I have already mentioned with regard to the question of provincial councils and the relevance of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission for England to the problems of Scotland and Wales, that it was precisely because the Commission recognised the relevance of its recommendations within

its more limited geographical remit to the problems of Scotland and Wales that this was to be looked at by the Constitutional Commission, which can now go forward with its study of Scottish and Welsh problems having as part of the background the Report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, which would not stop the House moving ahead of the Crowther Commission, if necessary. But it may be difficult to reach final conclusions until we have the Crowther Commission's report on the implications for Scotland and Wales.

Dr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister foresee the protracted negotiations and consultations about boundary and other questions as being a reason for the redistribution of Parliamentary boundaries being held up?

The Prime Minister: That is another question, but perhaps I might reply to the hon. Gentleman by saying that the Government are giving careful and urgent consideration to the recommendations for constituency changes. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will bring his conclusions before the House, and I do not think that the hon. Member should expect me to anticipate them.

Mr. Moonman: My right hon. Friend will recall the promise made by his right hon. Friend and himself at the time of the publication of the Maud Report, that the associated subject of Seebohm and its implication would be referred to the House. Can he say when that will be?

The Prime Minister: Ever since the Seebohm Report was received we have made it clear that its views on proposals for administrative reorganisation of the Health Service would have to be considered in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission. That must have some effect on the kind of local authority structure involved. We can now go ahead with the more detailed consideration of Seebohm, and will make our views known as soon as we can.
Perhaps it might help my hon. Friend if I were to remind my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Social Services has said that the Government intend to make an interim statement on Seebohm after the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission, but I do not think that we can expect to take any final decisions before the Summer Recess.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Prime Minister aware that, for example, the Redcliffe-Maud Report proposes to amalgamate South Worcestershire with Herefordshire—[Interruption.] It would put up my majority. Can he, therefore, say, in the context of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), whether the Home Secretary will take into account the recommendations of Redcliffe-Maud before he lays before the House the proposals of the Boundary Commission? And did that Commission know the contents of the Redcliffe-Maud Report before reporting to the Home Secretary?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely certain that not only I but all other hon. and right hon. Members made the recommendation on South Worcestershire the second thing we looked at in the appendices to the Report. But, naturally, on this, as on all other boundary questions, and amalgamations and merger proposals, it must be a matter for consultation with the local authorities concerned—

Sir G. Nabarro: And my constituents.

The Prime Minister: I think that even the hon. Gentleman's constituents are entitled to be consulted, and not to rely on him as a rather inadequate means. The hon. Member's constituents will be consulted on local government boundaries.
With regard to the relevance of the Boundary Commission to the areas concerned, I have said more than once, as my right hon. Friend has, that the Redcliffe-Maud Report will have some bearing on Parliament's final decision on the matter, but I can inform the hon. Gentleman that to the best of my knowledge the members of the Boundary Commission have no prior information of what would be contained in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. They could not have done so—the Redcliffe-Maud Report was signed only very recently—and there is no provision, nor would it be proper, for exchange of information between the two bodies.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Reverting to the question of finance, is my right hon. Friend aware that not everyone will welcome the proposition in the Report that rates should continue to be the main source of revenue for local authorities?

Notwithstanding all that this Government have done to ease the burden on domestic ratepayers, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people would prefer the alternative of a system based on ability to pay?

The Prime Minister: The Maud Commission having looked at this, but not having made it one of its themes of study, has reached the same conclusion as others have reached, that the rating system is wholly inadequate but that no one so far has produced a better substitute. That is a short summary of what the Commission has said. It said that the question needs further examination and will also need to be considered in the light of the Crowther Commission's Report and any recommendations the Government may make in the light of the working party which has been set up.
It is true that as a result of legislation introduced by this Government householders are receiving the benefit of a poundage reduction of 1s. 3d. in the £ as a result of central subsidies, but although that may be a palliative, and important, it does not deal with many of the complaints levelled against the rating system, although we have not yet heard from any hon. Member opposite a really cast-iron proposal for something better.

Mr. Maddan: Is the Prime Minister aware, following what he has just said, that any recommendations he brings to the House for us to approve will be very hollow if they do not go some way beyond rates and central Government grants as a means of financing local authority expenditure? Does he not now regret that the terms of reference of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission did not specifically include local authority finance?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not regret that. There was a whole section on it, because the Commission realised that it could not make its main remit without reference to it. We all recognise the limitations of the rating system, including its regressiveness in some respects. It is easy for us to see that but much harder for successive Governments and the House as a whole to provide an adequate alternative. No doubt the hon. Member and others will come forward with suggestions on this when we debate these matters.

Mr. Heffer: Can my right hon. Friend clarify the point that the discussions on boundaries will not be confined merely to boundaries at the third tier, but that there will also be discussions on the provincial and metropolitan boundaries' areas? I am sure he is aware that there would be some considerable objections concerning the North-West provincial area and the Merseyside metropolitan area.

The Prime Minister: I said that in the matter of consultations on the proposed structure—this was in answer to the Leader of the Opposition—obviously there will be questions of principle which must be the subject of consultations, for example, the rôle of the smaller authorities and, indeed, of Merseyside on the question I mentioned of education.
All matters of boundaries, be they of provinces, of metropolitan, that is, conurbation authorities, be they of main authorities or perhaps the third tier—all of these will be matters for consultation. So far as Merseyside is concerned, without committing myself on it in advance by these consultations, I rejoice that the recommendations bring me even closer to my hon. Friend.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On the point of order. The statement was on the Royal Commission on Local Government of England and two of the longest questions came from Wales and Scotland. Although St. George has been demoted in other quarters, there is no need for St. George to be demoted in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Member's keen interest in St. George, but I have to protect the business of the House.

LIBYA (ARMS SUPPLIES)

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Her Majesty's Government's proposal to sell to Libya Chieftain tanks which they have refused to sell to Israel.

This story was broken today by Mr. Chapman Pincher in the Daily Express. While the publicity it has received may be relevant to the question of urgency, I, of course, take personal responsibility for the facts which I shall state in support of my application.
These facts are, first, that a deal is about to be finalised with Libya for the sale of about £40 million of arms, including a high proportion of Chieftain tanks which are our latest and most powerful tanks and Abbot mobile guns. Secondly, that we supplied about two and a half years ago two Chieftain tanks to Israel for evaluation, but there was some trouble with the builders, but those tanks have been found satisfactory and a year ago Israel put through an order for £60 million. That order, which the Ministry of Defence was anxious to accept, has been held up by the Foreign Office under present circumstances.
Those circumstances were understood to be the four-Power talks. If those four-Power talks have any chance of success we must not take any partisan position in advance. The sale to an Arab Power, at present at war with Israel, of the very tanks which we have refused to Israel would put us in that partisan position. We have also to remember that at this very moment we are receiving a visit from Mrs. Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel.
This story having broken, and these facts being as they are, if this situation in the Middle East is not to be finally prejudiced it is necessary that either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence should be in a position to come to the House to explain the situation and it is the duty of this House to give him that opportunity.
Standing Order No. 9 provides an opportunity and I believe that we should be falling short of our duty if we did not take it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was courteous enough to inform me this morning that he would seek an application under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. and learned Member has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he


thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
Her Majesty's Government's proposal to sell to Libya Chieftain tanks which they have refused to sell to Israel.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations the hon. and learned Member has made, but I have to rule that the hon. and learned Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. On a previous occasion, before the Standing Order was changed, I asked for leave to move the Adjournment of the House under the then Standing Order concerning a report about the proposed supply of arms to Vietnam. You then said to the House, Sir, that you had every sympathy with my arguments in so seeking leave at that time, but that before there was a change in the Standing Order you could not accede to my request. Since then the Standing Order has been amended.
Although I cannot ask you to tell us the reasons why you now adhere to the same attitude as that which you adopted on that occasion before the change was made in the Standing Order, I submit that hon. Members must have an opportunity at least to express their disappointment that, even after the change in the Standing Order, we cannot now, before the effective decision to export these arms has been taken, discuss the matter in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is doing exactly what the Standing Order does not permit him to do. In my evidence to the Committee of Procedure on Standing Order No. 9 I set out all the

problems I am instructed by the House to give no reasons.
This is a difficult decision that Mr. Speaker has to make from time to time. It is bound to disappoint the hon. Gentleman who asks for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 9. It is bound to disappoint other hon. Gentlemen who are keenly interested in the subject which is raised. The subject would not be raised if it was not a matter of keen interest to somebody. Mr. Speaker can only decide what he has decided, and there we must leave it.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not drift into the old habit which has gone for a long time of questioning the Ruling on an application for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order and I have no intention of in any way questioning your Ruling. May I make a request on behalf of myself and many other hon. Members to the Leader of the House that the Minister concerned should give the House a full statement on the position?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point that I think the Leader of the House will take note of.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 20th JUNE

The following Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr. Brewis.

Mr. Iremonger.

Captain W. Elliot: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th June, I shall call attention to the chaotic and damaging situation in the London docks, and move a Resolution.

RACE RELATIONS ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Race Relations Act 1968; and for connected purposes.
My proposed Bill stems from a resolution carried unanimously at the 1968 Trades Union Congress and couched in these terms:
That this Congress notes with concern that there are social and working men's clubs which practise racial discrimination in regard both to admission to the clubs and to the engagement of performers. Congress endorses the action taken by the performers' unions in instructing their members to refuse engagements in such clubs and asks the General Council to call upon all affiliated unions to support the performers' unions in this matter by any means open to them.
At this stage I remind the House that before coming here I was Assistant General Secretary to British Actors' Equity Association and that I still have a part-time connection with that organisation; so in that sense I have an interest in the matter.
My Bill would extend the operation of the Race Relations Act, 1968, to clubs. It would provide that a club may legitimately restrict its membership to particular ethnic groups or nationalities, provided that it does so publicly and in accordance with adopted rules. Thus a club may be set up for Jewish bakers, or for Pakistani conductors, or even as one hon. Member opposite would probably like for descendants of William the Conqueror only, provided that it is done properly, openly and in accordance with the rules of the club.
If my Bill is carried into effect, the practice of unstated but vicious colour discrimination in clubs would be eliminated.
The only other proposal in the Bill would be to correct an unintentional consequence of the 1968 Act. Under that Act it is now illegal to advertise for a person having particular national characteristics. Thus, it is illegal to advertise for an Indian or a Chinese waiter. It is probably illegal to advertise for a Hawaiian guitarist. Theatrical employers certainly cannot advertise for a coloured actor to fill a rôle; so if they need one they have to use a telephone or send messages. This was not the intention of the Act, but it has this effect, so the people who carry these advertisements—the Stage, for example—are legally advised and they are refusing to carry such advertisements. My proposed Bill would correct this mistake without permitting any other undesirable laxity to creep in.
Both these proposals have the support of the Race Relations Board. If the House permits the introduction of the Bill, I hope to gain Government support between now and Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. George Wallace, and Mr. Stanley Orme.

RACE RELATIONS ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Race Relations Act 1968; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Orders of the Day — TANZANIA BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to enable existing United Kingdom laws to be given the same effect in relation to Tanzania as they have in relation to other countries in the Commonwealth, and had in relation to Tanganyika and in some cases Zanzibar before their merger.
As the House will recall, in 1964, Tanganyika and Zanzibar joined to form a new State which, in October of that year, became the United Republic of Tanzania. The Bill is thus similar in intent to Acts making consequential provisions in respect of United Kingdom law rendered necessary by the attainment of independence by a Commonwealth country or its subsequent adoption of a republican constitution.
This is primarily an enabling measure with limited objectives. The first and most important of these is to amend the British Nationality Act, 1948, by substituting "Tanzania" for "Tanganyika" and "Zanzibar" in the list of Commonwealth countries in Section 1(3) of that Act. This will give Tanzanians the status of British subjects and Commonwealth citizens in United Kingdom law, and will bring them into line in this respect with citizens of all other Commonwealth countries, and Tanganyikans and Zanzibaris before the union.
The object of Clause 2 is somewhat removed from the main purpose of the Bill. It concerns the Colonial and Other Territories (Divorce Jurisdiction) Acts which, broadly speaking, enabled colonial courts to grant divorces to expatriates. After Tanganyikan independence, the courts there continued under these Acts to grant divorces which are considered to be defective in United Kingdom law.
The opportunity has, therefore, been taken to include a provision in the Bill to validate such divorces. This will be achieved by preserving the jurisdiction of Tanganyika courts under these Acts from

independence to May, 1965, when they ceased to possess such jurisdiction under Tanzania law, and to preserve such jurisdiction in relation to proceedings instituted during that period.
Clause 3 concerns ships owned by Tanzanian citizens. Since the status of a "British" ship is determined by the national status of its owner, a consequence of regarding Tanzanians as British subjects for the purpose of United Kingdom law, which will be achieved by Clause 1, would be to regard ships owned by Tanzanian citizens as British ships.
The purpose of Clause 3, therefore, is to ensure that such ships are not brought within certain regulatory provisions of United Kingdom legislation, and this would be accomplished by the exclusion of the ships registered in Tanzania from the scope of the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939, and the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1934.
Clauses 4 and 5 are designed to enable such United Kingdom enactments as may be considered appropriate to be applied in relation to Tanzania as they apply in relation to other Commonwealth countries. This application will, of course, affect only the law of the United Kingdom and of those territories for which Her Majesty's Government have responsibility. It does not have effect as part of the law of Tanzania.
When the Bill becomes law, the power of application will be exercised in respect of a number of statutes by Orders in Council which will be laid before Parliament.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State—a most agreeable Minister—for so ably introducing this short Bill. I am glad that he followed the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in producing almost precisely the same introduction to the Bill as was heard in another place.
I am sorry that the ancient and splendid name "Tanganyika" should now apparently be lost for ever, for on the one occasion when I had the pleasure of visiting Tanganyika I was told how it got its national anthem. It appears that a competition was held to see which tune could possibly accommodate the word "Tanganyika" and the only tune found


to do so was the tune to "My Darling Clementine"—"Tanganyika, Tanganyika". I am sorry that the change to the name "Tanzania" means that it is necessary to give up that old English and Australian tune as the origin of the national anthem.
I give a general but lukewarm welcome to the Bill—general because it tidies up some legislation which needs tidying up, and lukewarm, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, because it should have been brought in before and because it contains a number of retrospections which are designed, at least in one case—divorce—to rectify omissions made by the Commonwealth Office draftsmen seven years ago. In case it is thought that I am making a party political point here, let me add that these omissions were made when the Conservative Party formed the Government, although I doubt whether my right hon. Friends drafted the language themselves.
It is impossible to comprehend the scope of the Bill without studying briefly the legal background to it. The background is the union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar which, from 26th April, 1964, until 28th October, 1964, was known as the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and has since become known as Tanzania.
A number of British Acts of Parliament have references only to either Tanganyika or Zanzibar, and since neither of these States now exists these Acts cease to have legal validity. The Bill, as I understand it, gives these Acts legal validity by changing the references to Tanganyika and Zanzibar to references simply to Tanzania. I understand that the Bill is almost entirely concerned with the validity of British legislation, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, alongside all these legal facts, is the relevant recent history which has caused the Bill to become necessary.
Tanganyika became independent as a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen as head of State, on 9th December, 1961, and on 9th December, 1962, became a republic within the Commonwealth. Thereafter, on 16th December, 1963—and these dates are relevant—Zanzibar became independent as a constitutional monarchy with the Sultan as Head of

State. Soon afterwards the Sultan was overthrown and a republican régime established. Britain recognised the new régime in February, 1964, a month later.
When the Sultan was overthrown, he was given access to Britain with a number of his supporters and the then British Government set up a handsome trust fund of £90,000, from which he would get an income, and a further £10,000 was set aside for various other royal purposes. I understand that the Sultan now lives in an hotel in Hampshire. I am sure that we all wish him well there. But I am bound to say, in passing, that one must contrast the rather generous treatment given to the Sultan by the Conservative Government with the somewhat less generous treatment given to the King of Buganda, who is living in poverty in Britain and whose circumstances are very much less favourable than those of the Sultan of Zanzibar, who cannot be described as quite so warm a friend of Britain as the King of Buganda is.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I have no objection to what my hon. Friend has said about the King of Buganda. Indeed, I go a long way with him in his view on that matter. We should consider whether we could not do more for the King. But my hon. Friend has called the trust fund for the Sultan of Zanzibar "handsome". That is an odd way to describe money which we specifically owed the Sultan as a result of our ceding, against his wishes, the territory that belonged to him in a sovereign way in Kenya. If we had not provided the £100,000, which was owed to him, we would have been in breach of a solemn treaty obligation. The £100,000 was what we owed to the Sultan.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) speaks with great authority and I naturally accept what he says. It would obviously have been very shabby to have treated the Sultan in any other way, but I was really contrasting his situation with that of another very good friend of this country and a contemporary of mine at university. The King of Buganda has been treated much less generously. I hope that his position will be considered by the Government.
However, I return to the legal and historical context of the Bill. In April,


1964, the Republics of Tanganyika and Zanzibar joined together to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. On 24th October, 1964, the President of the United Republic, Dr. Nyerere, announced that the Republic henceforth would be known as the United Republic of Tanzania.
All of us will wish this United Republic of Tanzania well. We wish it to remain a unity. We wish it to remain a country under the rule of law. But the Under-Secretary will not fail to recall that within a year of its achieving its unity the Republic of Tanzania broke off its diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom, though remaining, I am glad to say, within the Commonwealth. This action was probably taken because of the Rhodesian situation. Diplomatic relations remained broken between our two countries for a period of some three years. I am glad to say that they have now been resumed.
So much for the history, which is relevant to any consideration of the Bill. I turn now to the Clauses and as I proceed I shall give notice of some of the issues which we shall wish to discuss in Committee. In the Long Title of the Bill there is the phrase
the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar … within the Commonwealth".
This is something which the whole House will welcome, but I hope that the Government will find ways and means, when the Bill is passed, of indicating to Dr. Nyerere, whom I admire, and his Government, that the advantages of their remaining in the Commonwealth may not be had for nothing.
No one would suggest that the Commonwealth is an organisation requiring all its members necessarily to contribute to the British point of view, but if we are to retain the concept of republics remaining within the Commonwealth, at least there should be some broad community of attitudes among member Governments. I do not wish to push this too far, because I have no desire to be offensive to any person or official within the Republic of Tanzania, but I am bound to remind the Under-Secretary that over recent years Tanzania has not only broken off diplomatic relations with this country, but has threatened and in some cases has actually seized British property. There have been cases, or at least suggestions, of British

nationals being mistreated. There has been a consistent pattern of Tanzania taking a hostile attitude towards this country at the United Nations and there was also the three-year period when there were no diplomatic relations.
The point I make is that within the Long, Title we have enshrined the phrase "within the Commonwealth" and, without in any way wishing to be critical of or offensive towards Tanzania, I hope that the Government will indicate that membership of the Commonwealth involves a certain community of interest towards the rule of law, towards the decent treatment on one another's citizens and property.
Clause 1 is concerned with the British Nationality Acts, as the Under-Secretary has explained. I draw his attention to subsection 3(a), which says that for the purposes of the British Nationality Act if immediately before 9th December, 1961, a person was a British-protected person, he shall be deemed on having become a citizen of the United Republic to have ceased to be a British-protected person.
This is a technical Bill and I appreciate that we are dealing mostly retrospectively with technicalities. However, there may well be cases of British-protected persons who were living in what was then Tanganyika and who had no option but to become Tanzanian citizens. Often they had no option because otherwise their property or their votes might have been lost, or their families placed in a dfficult situation. It is not simply a historical accident that some people became Tanzanian citizens. Not all British residents there were suddenly filled with a great effusion of loyalty towards the new régime. Some took the new nationality because they had no option, no real choice.
This has happened across the whole wide world. Certainly, it has happened in many of our colonial territories. Many of us would feel rather sorry for those to whom this has happened. What I find difficult is that retrospectively we are telling them that at the point when they took up their new Tanzanian citizenship, we took away the British protection which they always thought they had.
There is a difference between the free choice of a man who takes on another


citizenship, knowing full well that at that point he loses the citizenship of the United Kingdom, and a man who takes on Tanzanian, or any other nationality, but does not suppose at that moment that the price will be the forfeiting for ever of his British-protected status. At the time, those who had no option but to become Tanzanian citizens did not think for a moment that they would lose their British-protected status. In the event, four or five years later Parliament is asked to reach back into history and to tell those people that when they became Tanzanians, they lost their British-protected status not only as from the date when the House considers the Bill but for the last five years.
The Under-Secretary will rightly say that we are dealing with a practical problem, but I hope that he will accept, as we discuss the Bill, and, I hope, pass it, that there is something slightly offensive in the notion that when a man takes on a citizenship which he has no option but to take, he forfeits something which he did not realise at the time would be taken from him.
Clause 2 is most interesting. It is the nearest I have seen for a long time to a Government Department admitting that it has made a mistake. This is rare in legislation and the House should note it. The mistake was that when Tanganyika first became independent, in December, 1961, the Tanganyika Independence Act did not include provision for allowing the divorce courts in Tanganyika to continue to give divorces to expatriates. This was an error. In the other place, Lord Shepherd said that the divorces which, in fact, had since been given were defective. Consequently, a small number of people—and perhaps the Under-Secretary is able to say how many—have been living for a number of years in the belief that the divorces they were given were valid when they were not.
I am in no position to speculate on the possible consequences in terms of property settlements or the status of children, but we ought to recognise that the Parliamentary draftsmen—and those at the Foreign Office who oversee their work—failed to put in this sort of consequential provision concerning the lives of individual men and women and that that

is the kind of error which may lead to distress and which the House ought not to allow in legislation.
So often, we rush Bills through and leave it to others to work them out in detail. This is inevitable in our circumstances, but—I do not wish to be offensive to the Foreign Office or our draftsmen—this was an error, and a number of people have been left with defective divorces, while the consequences to their property and their children may have been serious and difficult. Let us at least resolve, when criticising this omission—during the time of a Conservative Government, let it be said—that we shall not allow these omissions to slip into law because of inadequate supervision in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or inadequate surveillance in this House.
Clause 3 is the most obscure of Clauses. The Minister, who is always clarity itself, uses the same language as was used in the other place. Since I do not have a copy of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I will rely on the HANSARD report of Lord Shepherd's speech, because he was using practically identical language. He said:
The purpose of Clause 3 … is to ensure that ships owned by Tanzanian citizens are not brought within the scope of United Kingdom legislation …".
Earlier, he said that the Bill would
… make Tanzanian citizens British subjects for the purposes of British law and consequently ships owned by Tanzanian citizens British ships."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th May, 1969; c. 1160.]
Would the hon. Gentleman explain what that means? I presume that it has a meaning, but it is a very occult one. Having just expressed myself forcibly about the need for clarity in legislation because of the divorce point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain to those of us who are laymen, and not lawyers, what these words, which he repeated, actually mean.
Clause 3 goes on to say:
This Section shall be deemed to have come into operation on 26th April 1964 …
I can think of nothing which defines retrospection more clearly. It passes understanding that Parliament feels that it can wipe out five years of history. All kinds of things have happened in law and in fact. Although I shall support the


Bill without hesitation, we should consider carefully before using that sort of retrospective language in our law.
Also, why has this date been chosen? I am not sure of the significance of 26th April, 1964. Earlier, in my historical preamble, I recounted some of the more pertinent dates, but I could not find this one. It may have been the day on which President Nyerere announced that Zanzibar and Tanganyika would join to become the new republic, but, if so, it is odd that we should choose the day when he happened to say it to enshrine in our legislation. Perhaps no other date could have been chosen, but we should like an explanation. Clause 4(4) (a) and (b) are even more retropsective.
All of the powers under the Bill—the retrospections, the fact that the Government are to take power to make Orders in Council to apply the Bill not only to British people but to West Indians, since it applies to the whole of the Associated States, including, I presume, Anguilla—will be sought from the House under the negative Resolution procedure. They should use the affirmative procedure, so that the House can consider these matters more carefully.
I shall certainly support the Bill, because it tidies up some points which needed tidying up. It puts right at least one grave defect which should not have occurred in the first place, and it should help, in a general way, to improve our relations with Tanzania. All of us will wish Tanzania well. All of us have been impressed, I think, over the last year or so by the Arusha Declaration and by the attitude taken by President Nyerere, who has told his people that, although they will welcome all the foreign aid which they get, in the end it depends on their own efforts and their own generation of capital how effectively their country and their society develops.
The Arusha Declaration was a beacon in Africa. Particularly at a time when recent history has shown so many sad elements in African life, this was a case of a country trying to stand on its own feet. It is something which we should applaud and support. The negative side of the picture, of course, is the increasing infiltration of Tanzania by the Chinese. I wonder whether the Chinese, having completed their survey of the railway,

will feel able or willing to put up the large sums which would be required to build it. I suspect that if, having made great play with their survey, they fail to construct the railway, their name will be mud throughout East Africa.
I would not mind that at all. I suspect that President Nyerere is on to them and there is some evidence that the Chinese, who are not particularly popular among the Tanzanian people, are being squeezed further east towards Zanzibar. If they are squeezed even further east, I shall not worry.
I have raised some technical points and have said that there will need to be an agreeable Committee stage during which the Opposition will do their job vigilantly to prevent any further legal defects. We will wish the Bill a speedy passage. I wish Tanzania, however it is now described, a very fruitful future.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I wish briefly to intervene in the debate and to take up two of the general points which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) made.
It would be sad if the view was to go out from this House that we have reservations about fellow members of the Commonwealth who believe that the strength of the Commonwealth is to be found in an honest and frank exchange of different views on issues of mutual concern. For anyone who has watched with close interest the spirit and the detail of the argument used by the leaders of Tanzania on issues of mutual concern in the Commonwealth, it is absolutely clear that the sort of criticisms which are made about British policy are made in the hope that mutual understanding can be found and that the Commonwealth, as an heterogeneous assembly of nations with differing backgrounds, can be strengthened.
Its future surely lies in the recognition that its strength stems from, not homogenous sycophantic groupings of likeminded nations, but healthy dialogue between nations with different views. In view of what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, and with which I agree, about the spirit of the Arusha Declaration, it would be unfortunate if he were to mar his remarks by apparently patronising reference to some


of the genuine differences of attitude on international affairs which have existed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the presence of the Chinese in Tanzania and their part in the construction of the Tanzan railway. It should be noted in the context of this debate that the fact that the Chinese are involved in the construction of the Tanzan railway is because repeated appeals and requests to the West by President Nyerere and President Kaunda of Zambia were unsuccessful. There is a lesson to be learned from this. I do not believe that the Presidents of these two fellow Commonwealth countries went to the Chinese as their first choice. They went to them in the absence of support from Western countries such as ours and from the World Bank. It would be most unfortunate if there were any feeling as a result of this discussion that their first loyalty was to the Chinese rather than to other parts of the Commonwealth. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would be the first to agree with that.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Under-Secretary of State has considerable knowledge of Africa, where he has travelled widely. He introduced the Bill in a characteristically agreeable way. I hope that he will not mind my asking why the Bill has been introduced now after such a delay. I should have thought that it might have been introduced several years ago to take account of the changes in Tanganyika and Zanzibar. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say, when he replies, whether this delay, which has necessitated certain retrospection in the Bill, is due to congestion of the legislative programme or to something else.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the Bill will enable Commonwealth citizenship to be conferred on former residents of the two former British territories now living in the United Kingdom. I am glad of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) referred to His Highness the Sultan and the provision made for his maintenance. I agree completely with my hon. Friend that a more generous attitude might have been shown to the Kabaka. But we are not now concerned

with him; we are concerned with the people from Zanzibar and Tanganyika, as it used to be. Would the Under-Secretary of State say—because if public money is involved this House has responsibility—to what extent other provision is made for His Highness, his family and entourage other than the sum of money to which he is entitled, as was pointed out in a rather desultory discussion among ourselves, because of his cession of the coastal strip?
I have had contact with other people from Zanzibar who have had travel documents difficulties, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Home Office for its sympathy when I have put forward their cases. People from Zanzibar living here in exile are fortunate compared with other formerly protected persons who were the victims of genocide, the subject of recent legislation in the House, or who are now subject to the revolutionary Government in Zanzibar.
This should be pointed out to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), or it could have been pointed out to him if he had not left the House immediately after making his speech. I do not complain of that, because I am sure that he has something more important to do. It should, however, be said, when it is suggested that we should not be too critical of other parts of the Commonwealth, that the present régime in Zanzibar—I do not know whether I would be right in calling it an illegal régime—rules by means of arbitrary arrest, imprisonment without trial, forced labour and confiscation of property.
There is an element of unreality in this discussion and in the Bill and in what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West said. The purpose of the Bill is to enable existing United Kingdom laws to have the same effect in relation to Tanzania as they have in relation to other countries of the Commonwealth, and as they had in in relation to Tanganyika and in some cases Zanzibar before their merger.
The reason for this Measure is a constitutional union which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said we should wish well. We have great good will for the people of these territories. But in large measure this constitutional union is a constitutional fiction. Theoretically, in Zanzibar there is a separate


executive and a separate legislature, although representative institutions do not function in Zanzibar. Although, on paper, there is a constitutional union, it is in fact, in great measure, fictitious. Perhaps it is to the credit of President Nyerere and his Government that this should be so because, having some idea of the sort of people that they are, I know that they would not wish to know too much about or to bear too much responsibility for what happens in Zanzibar.
We cannot but have some reservations about what is happening in this corner of the Commonwealth. It has been described journalistically as an African "Cuba"—a Cuba within the Commonwealth. It is governed by a revolutionary council, but it is also, to some extent, occupied by Russians, Communist Chinese and East Germans. I know that all is not well between these neocolonialists from the Communist camp and the Zanzibar régime. Zanzibar's chafe under the advice given to them by these intruders.
It is all very well saying that we are one happy heterogeneous Commonwealth family and that we should bear with each other and should not be too critical of what is going on. But if we forbear to criticise, let us know what we are talking about. This is the situation in Zanzibar at present, part of the Commonwealth territory with which the Bill is concerned. The President of the Zanzibar revolutionary council, Sheikh Abeid Karume, is First Vice-President of the United Republic of Tanzania. He celebrated Human Rights Year by announcing a new legal system—and we must have regard to this when discussing the principles which should govern Commonwealth membership and Commonwealth relationships—under which courts of law would be abolished as "relics of colonialism". The closest parallel to his purposes is to be found in China.
Already, in October, 1966, the Revolutionary Council had set up a secret "Special Court", with exclusive jurisdiction to deal with offences of a political nature, and with full power to impose sentence of death, of imprisonment, of flogging or fine, but no power to allow an accused to be represented by a lawyer, or to admit the public to its proceedings. It is greatly to the credit of the authorities in Dar-es-Salaam that,

before this court began to sit, the decree setting it up was suspended.
This, I think, was probably because of the intervention of President Nyerere. So far as I know, the High Court system still extends to Zanzibar under the interim constitution, but I should like to hear more about this from the hon. Gentleman, since the court system prevailing in the United Republic bears upon the Tanzania Bill that we are discussing.
We are legislating in connection with a tenuous union, part of which is under a revolutionary régime which does not necessarily act as though it were incorporated in the Commonwealth State known as Tanzania.
Incidentally, Sheik Abeid Karume also celebrated Human Rights Year by announcing that there would be no elections for the next 50 years. His speeches repay reading; he has a rather dry sense of humour. In a speech in Dar-es-Salaam on 7th July, 1968, he made some remarks which must have been a little embarrassing to the Government there:
Some of my Tanzanian friends in the National Assembly have talked about the holding of elections in Zanzibar. … I must tell you that Zanzibar has already held its final elections. On January 12th, 1964 the Wamatungi removed the Omani Arabs, and ever since then we have been governing ourselves. If we hold elections now, whom do they want us to elect?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The six principles.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend says, "the six principles". We have no power to impose principles, and that is not what we should be doing. But I will not enter that field today in this agreeable debate.
That the population of Zanzibar more than three years after the revolution can take no part in the country's affairs was condemned by the International Commission of Jurists, which is a nongovernmental organisation having consultative status with the United Nations.
The Under-Secretary and I were in correspondence and he was most helpful, but I am afraid that correspondence did not achieve very much for certain ex-Ministers. These are British-protected persons.

Mr. Foley: They were.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: There were nine ex-Ministers detained by the illegal régime in November, 1968; three of them—

Mr. Foley: May I explain this? They were British-protected persons by virtue of being, in Zanzibar, the Sultan's subjects. At the time of independence they lost their British-protected person status and became Zanzibari citizens.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It may be that these three gentlemen, if they are still alive, will become Commonwealth citizens if the Bill is enacted.
These three Ministers were released by an act of clemency of the President of the United Republic, and were then rearrested after they had asked for passports so that they could leave Tanzania for another Commonwealth country. According to the Zanzibari Organisation—and I emphasise that this is rumour—they have since died in the hands of the secret police, who I am informed have the benefit of technical assistants from Eastern Germany. I repeat that this is rumour, and I hope that it is not true.
It would have been agreeable if the Bill could have included provision to remedy the injustice to which some former Government servants now in this country are subject through no fault of their own. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is also interested in the case of Mr. Yahya Alawi, M.B.E., who gave 36 years' service in Zanzibar and afterwards served with distinction in Aden.
There are others who served on local terms of service in Zanzibar, some of whom are living on supplementary benefit because they are not covered by the Public Officers' Agreement, 1965. It is an injustice that the Tanzanian Government should have generally declined responsibility for pensioners not covered by that agreement. I do not know what can be done. It is a matter more for the Ministry of Overseas Development than for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but perhaps an inquiry could be made into the circumstances of each of those officers. I quite understand the difficulty of paying out to them money from British sources, and the precedents that might be

created. If inquiry could be made as to their present circumstances it may be that those who are living on supplementary benefit could be fitted into employment.
If something of that sort could be done to allow these people who have given good service to live here in self-respect then, if they have lost their country, they may, nevertheless, have some consciousness of the Commonwealth, of which there has been talk in this debate.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I agree with the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on the irony of passing an Act to recognise and apply to Zanzibar the advantages and privileges of our Commonwealth when we have there an illegal revolutionary Government. In view of the extreme legalism of our attitude to a Government in Rhodesia only too anxious to be friendly, it seems odd that we should be so indifferent to legalism in Zanzibar with a Government so anxious to be unfriendly. But are not we here seeking to legalise the fiction?
What we are doing by this Act is to accept Dar-es-Salaam's responsibility for Zanzibar and what happens in Zanzibar. Believe me, that is a formidable responsibility, considering what is happening in Zanzibar. I find it a little odd that President Nyerere should welcome being held responsible for it, because I am quite certain that he is not. The writ of Dar-es-Salaam no more runs in Zanzibar than the writ of Nasser runs in the United Arab Republic at Damascus. Of course it does not. If any outside Government is in control in Zanzibar, that outside Government is in Peking, not in Dar-es-Salaam.
One has in Zanzibar an alarming, violent, Communist Government, probably a great deal more lethal than the Government of Albania—regarded as about bottom of the league in Governments so far as we are concerned. It seems odd that we should now take up time granting to Zanzibar the privileges, economic and otherwise, of Commonwealth membership. If such a thing exists, I suppose we have a measure of moral responsibility for their behaviour. This assumes that the Commonwealth today is other than a fiction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) said that the Commonwealth was a splendid thing because it involved a dialogue. I do not quite know what that means. But if it is a debating society for the exercise of mutual invective, I doubt that it is worth the expense. It does not involve any community of interest. It does not even involve mutual diplomatic recognition. Recently Tanganyika or Tanzania, whichever one is prepared to call it—and I shall not go into the legalities of what it was at the time—withdrew diplomatic recognition from this country for all purposes, save the acceptance of the aid which we continue to give it. It certainly does not involve any acceptance of influence by us on their policy. In fact, it is the last thing that we would dare to offer. But on their part it involves a claim to influence our policy, and in the case of Rhodesia to influence it quite disastrously.
Mention has been made of the railway which is to run across some quite awful country. I know because I have crossed the area which is being surveyed by the Chinese. I am not as fond of the Chinese as all that, but it would be an awful thing if the Chinese were to build it. It is a purely political railway, a railway whose object is in no way commercial. It is an effort to try to chivvy Rhodesia. It cannot possibly pay, and I do not think that it will ever work. But if they want to make fools of themselves over the railway, why should we worry?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chinese are in a similar position to that of the Prime Minister with his trade union legislation? If they build it, they are in trouble; if they do not, it is even worse?

Mr. Paget: I would not be the right person to go into that particular controversy at this time. I see the resemblance which the hon. Member seeks to draw. It is not a dilemma with a particular pair of horns off which I am particularly anxious to pick the Chinese. Sometimes one can be blackmailed through somebody threatening to commit suicide or commit some injury on themselves. I do not feel that the Chinese are in a position to blame me in that way.
I find it difficult to see the usefulness of this Bill at this time. It is an attempt, in a rather pedantic way, to give legal form to a quite illegal transaction in which we were not consulted. It involved recognition by one member of the Commonwealth of a revolution in another member of the Commonwealth which we had not recognised. It involved a kind of fictitious annexation which we are now recognising at the very point at which it has become obvious that that annexation did not actually take place. I do not see much point in the Bill and I hope that once it has been given a Second Reading, it will be conveniently forgotten.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Contrary to the remarks by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), I am sure that we shall not be accused by anyone of discrimination if we take a close look at the Bill. I share the views of the three hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Legislation not only should be precise but should have in it an element of realism. It is realism that is so lacking in our discussions today.
As regards the Chinese railway, I too have seen the area in which it is planned to be established. I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's almost cynical amusement about it. If ever there was a railway that was calculated to go from nowhere to nowhere, carrying nothing at all except for a fictitious south bound freedom army which seems to be an unlikely contingency, that railway is about the best example one could find.

Mr. Paget: If I were a general I could imagine no more happy fate than to be attacked by an army which relied upon that railway for its communications.

Sir F. Bennett: There are so many humorous elements in the situation that it is not worth our worrying about the Chinese toiling through the jungle on this project.
There has been mention in the debate of my knowledge of this part of Africa. I should like to set the record straight both with regard to the involvement of British protected person and the Sultan himself. We have not been generous at all to the Sultan. It would also be wrong to gain the impression that the


Sultan is other than a very good and true friend of this country, as has been his family, in quite difficult times. Certainly he is as friendly as any other African leader, and a great deal more friendly than some.
I wish to put the record straight about the so-called trust fund which was given to him. The truth is that the great grandfather of the present Sultan was involved in an arrangement by which he then leased to Kenya Government the Kenya strip, which belonged in sovereign right and law to the Sultan of Zanzibar long before the British went there, for an annual payment of £10,000.
We then indulged in as pretty a piece of compulsory purchase as anyone has ever gone in for. We did not give him even 20 years rental capitalised, but £100,000—roughly the equivalent of 10 years' rent—paid to him. There was no question of a trust fund. We only paid him what we were obligated in law to pay him. It was a pretty hard bargain. I will not labour the point. I feel that we should not also have done something only for the Kubaka and others who have been dispossessed. It is not right to compare the two cases. In the one case we have not been generous. We have merely maintained our legal obligations, obligations which we should have been fraudulent to avoid.

Sir Dingle Foot: To get the record straight, the offer of £100,000 that was made in return for rights on the coastal strip was as a result of a commission of inquiry. At the time the Sultan was on his throne he refused the offer that was made.

Sir F. Bennett: People often find it difficult to try to enforce a compulsory purchase. The Sultan felt that the £100,000 was not a fair price for it, but that was all he got in the end. That is the only point I make.

Sir Dingle Foot: The purpose of my intervention was to say that, in justice to the Sultan, it should be recorded that when he was still on the throne he refused the offer which was then made to him.

Sir F. Bennett: I appreciate that fully, and I thought that I had made the point when I used the phrase, "compulsory purchase". However, it was not a

generous gesture. It was the minimum with which we could get away with, with any self-respect.

Mr. Foley: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), then the Minister responsible, who said when he announced the establishment of the trust fund that it was right in the circumstances. Those were his words.

Sir F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong if he assumes that he will embarrass me by putting me in the position of having to say that everything done by Conservative Ministers was right. I am perfectly capable of criticising wrongful acts by Ministers of any party, and I would say that just as happily if my right hon. Friend were here. Indeed, I said it to him at the time.
The Government must take responsibility for putting before the House a Bill which the Minister must agree morally is asking us to approve a fiction. We all know that anyone going to Tanganyika at present, unless he is a particular sort of Englishman, cannot get to Zanzibar. I am doubtful about the exact extent of our diplomatic representation there, if it exists at all. In the so-called union, no Tanganyika M.P. is allowed to go to that part of his country. No judge can go there. Even the President, for whom I have considerable admiration and friendship, would find it difficult to pay anything more than infrequent visits to one part of the Union over which he presides. In view of that, it is right to say that we are being asked to approve a fiction.
The only argument in favour of the Bill—and it is for this reason only that I shall support it—is that in all the circumstances it is probably better that Zanzibar should be under even the most tenuous control from Tanganyika than to be completely on its own. That is the best that can be said about the present situation.
When the President of Tanganyika made his announcement, most of us were pleased that he had decided to take unilateral action at that time. If he had not, the remarks which are made about Cuba and so on would have been even more true of that country, which would have come under an even more specific


domination than it has in the event. For that reason alone, we should support the Union in the last resort because, in all the circumstances, it is the best which could be obtained at the time.
However, that does not remove from us the obligation to criticise certain aspects of this Measure. Earlier, the Minister remarked on the standing of certain British-protected persons who were locked up at the time of the takeover. I am not sure at what point they ceased to be British-protected persons. In my opinion, they ceased to be British-protected persons before the revolution and, therefore, before they were locked up, because by then independence had been granted to the lawful Government of the day.
That does not excuse the genocide, imprisonments and tortures at the time of the revolution which, unhappily, still linger on, and I hope that we shall be told if there is any sign of some relief in what must be one of the most rigorous policies of political imprisonment in the Commonwealth today. Certainly we have the right to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that there are no individuals under duress in Zanzibar for whom Her Majesty's Government have any responsibility, either as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or as British-protected persons. I should feel especially reluctant to support the Bill if we were condoning, the continued imprisonment of people for whom we still have a measure of responsibility.
The only other legalistic queries which I wish to put to the Minister are as follows. As I understand it, we are now trying to say retrospectively that a certain legal state of affairs has existed from April, 1964, to the present, and one or two cases are mentioned in the Bill. Is the Minister telling us that, in regard to every aspect of our previous responsibilties and arrangements vis-à-vis Zanzibar as it then was, we are issuing a completely blanket retrospective cover in respect, for example, of possible immigrants who may have meanwhile left Zanzibar; in respect of shipping, in respect of citizenship, and so on? In other words, can he say whether this is a completely blanket retrospection, or is it still the legal case that certain events have occurred in the last five years which were

illegal at the time and will go on being illegal? Is it claimed that we are putting everything right, or will a future Bill be put before the House dealing retrospectively with some point which has not yet occurred to anyone? There certainly has been sufficient time for consideration to be given to whether the retrospective effect is complete.
Several hon. Members have said that this is a small Bill. But it would have been wrong to allow it to go through without searching inquiries. Without going nearly as far as others who have condemned the Commonwealth, it still has an enormously important function, being the only forum where people of different races can at least try to work together. Nevertheless, when we find a glaring example, whether it be in Rhodesia or Zanzibar, where there is an inverted colour bar, of racial discrimination, we must not say it is not right for whites to behave badly in Rhodesia, yet it is right for blacks to behave equally badly in Zanzibar. It must be made clear that we detest and abhor only such attitudes; and that the only reason why we support the Bill is that the people of Zanzibar would probably have an even more abominable existence than they have at present, if the so called Union had not eventuated.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: We are grateful to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) for the short exposition of the Bill which he gave with his usual clarity and courtesy. However, having listened to the contributions to the debate, he will realise by now that the House requires a much more detailed explanation of the Bill than we have had so far. Many of its provisions are far from clear.
I appreciate that this measure is limited to the effects on British law which flow from the Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, now called Tanzania, in 1964, that we are not considering primarily the relationship between Tanzania and Britain, yet the mere fact that the Bill has been delayed for well over four years is, I suppose, a reflection of the strained relationship between our two countries during the greater part of that period.
Several hon. Members have asked why the Bill has been delayed so long. Is it simply because Tanzania chose in 1965 to break off diplomatic relations with Britain because of the Rhodesian situation, or is there some other reason?
I put that question because Clauses 1 and 2 refer specifically to consequential provisions in respect of two matters of the highest importance to the individuals concerned: nationality, on the one hand, and basic rights under the law, in particular relating to marriage and divorce, on the other.
Clause 1(3), for example, makes specific provision for those who, being British-protected persons immediately before Tanganyika became independent, did not, however, become citizens of the new State. The first question I must ask, therefore, is: have any of these persons been disadvantaged in any way by the delay in bringing forward the Bill? For example, have any divorces been defective? If so, Parliament should be told.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised a point of very considerable interest. It may be, like so many of the speeches today, that he was steering a bit wide of the provisions of the Bill; this is legitimate on Second Reading in dealing with a matter of this kind. Nevertheless, it may be that the point he raised has considerable significance in regard to the Bill itself. I am puzzled by one aspect of the nationality provision. Clause 1(3) refers to persons who were British-protected persons before 9th December, 1961, by virtue of their connection with Tanganyika, but who never became citizens of Tanganyika. The Bill nowhere makes any reference to persons who were British-protected persons, immediately before Zanzibar's independence, by virtue of their connection with Zanzibar, but who never became citizens of Zanzibar.
What is the reason for this omission? What are we covering up here? Has it something to do with the peculiar revolutionary situation in Zanzibar to which reference has been made? There may be a simple explanation, but I should like to have it spelt out.
There was also the point about the implications for Commonwealth immigrants

from Tanzania who may have come to Britain at any time while the Bill was waiting in the wings or resting in its pigeon-hole. If any did come, were they at that time Commonwealth citizens under our law? In other words, are they illegal immigrants? Or does the Bill apply to them retrospectively?
It has been a matter of great concern to all of us who know Tanganyika or have served there—and there are a number in this House—or who have had the privilege of knowing President Nyerere, as I have, that the relationship between our two countries has been strained in recent years. When I first went to Tanganyika some 15 years ago it was a land of much promise, especially in the sense that it was free from a great deal of the racial strife and bitterness which disfigured then and still disfigures today so large a part of the world. In the years that followed I, and I think all who have ever met him, felt that in Julius Nyerere, Tanganyika had a leader whose infectious enthusiasm and deep personal sincerity would not only serve his own country well, but Africa as a whole.
It was a very special tragedy, therefore, that the normally good relations between our two countries were damaged by the Rhodesian quarrel. It was a tragedy, too, that there should have arisen quite unnecessary difficulties over the treatment of expatriate pensioners and expatriate firms.
I say this because there are many of us—and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd)—who understood, accepted and, indeed, applauded that part of President Nyerere's Arusha Declaration in 1967 which called for national self-reliance. Clearly, without the revolution in social attitudes for which he was calling at that time, no part of Africa is likely to catch up very quickly with the rest of the world. Yet this hardly necessitated the harsh treatment meted out to expatriate pensioners who, after all, had given devoted service to the people of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and had helped to speed their independence.
The Minister of Overseas Development is present. I know that he will be the


first to acknowledge that, when developing countries all the world over are crying out for the expertise which foreign private enterprise alone can supply, it did not make any sense to nationalise expatriate firms.
Who could possibly have benefited from the decision of the Tanzanian Government to cease making provision for expatriate pensioners, the liability for which arose before independence, and to decline to repay the £6·5 million of loans provided by Her Majesty's Government for the purposes of compensation and commutation of pensions at the time of independence? Our own aid programme in that country was brought to an end, a development loan of £7·5 million, which had been agreed but was frozen when diplomatic relations were broken off in 1965, was made no longer available, recruitment of new technical assistance staff ceased, and existing technical assistance programmes began to run down. All this seemed totally unnecessary at the time.
When the Minister comes to reply to the many points which have been raised, I hope that he will be able to say whether there is likely to be any change in attitude's which will lead to a resumption of the mutually beneficial exchanges which used to take place between our two countries. I ask this because I note with some satisfaction that in the last few weeks the Tanzanian Government is reported to have agreed compensation terms with a number of British firms—mainly banks—which had been nationalised. Do the Government consider the compensation terms are adequate? I should also like to know whether there are any British firms which were nationalised which have not yet been covered by these agreements?
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) raised a very important point, concerning those pensioners who were not United Kingdom citizens at the time of independence but were British protected persons, especially those who had been recruited locally? This may have relevance to the odd omission of any reference in the Bill to British protected persons in Zanzibar. The case cited by my hon. Friend was that of a Zanzibari locally recruited civil servant, a man who must have served the Government there very well since he was awarded a decoration by Her Majesty. He

is now living on National Assistance in this country. This is a disgraceful state of affairs.
When I wrote to the Minister of Overseas Development about it, the answer I got from the Parliamentary Secretary was that he accepted that this gentleman
and others like him are in very difficult circumstances and I very much regret this; but I am afraid that the responsibility for their pensions rests and must remain with the Tanzanian Government.
I am not sure that we have to accept this at all. This man—and clearly from the reply I received there are others like him—is suffering as a consequence of the granting of independence to Tanzania and the subsequent disruption of relations between our two countries. Surely between them the two Governments have a moral responsibility. I beg the Under-Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to have another look at these cases and at least to make some sort of ad hoc arrangement to settle them satisfactorily. Common decency and justice demand that these people, whose fate has so far been ignored as a result of arrangements which we are coming to recognise by the passage of the Bill, should have something done for them.
I have no intention of addressing the House at length, and none of the points which I have made and to which I hope we shall get satisfactory answers must be allowed to obscure the general goodwill which I am sure we all have towards Tanzania. Even if the Rhodesian quarrel had not inflicted damage, as it has done, on the normally good relations between our two countries, the last few years would have seen difficulties for Tanzania because of the situation in Zanzibar to which references have been made. We could not have brushed that situation aside and ignored it. There would have been difficulties too because Tanzania, like so many of her neighbours, is seeking to develop the resources of her land and people and in the process there has to be a change in the age-old customs and modes of living.
It was all expressed rather sadly some years ago by an African tribal elder who, despairing of the bewildering changes he saw taking place around him, lamented that: "'twere better to have lived 100 years ago, or 100 years hence, rather than in these in-between times."


These are in-between times for Tanzania. I go along with what my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said about the Commonwealth. I think that imperfect instrument as it is, the Commonwealth provides the one real bridge which exists between the races today and one hopes that through its agency better times will come not merely to Tanzania but to Zanzibar.
As I say, these are in-between times for Tanzania and perhaps one may be permitted to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to express the hope that in the years ahead we in Britain may be able to help that country win a prosperous and dignified place in the community of nations.
With those few words I am ready to join my hon. Friends in commending the Bill to the House, subject to adequate answers being given to the many interesting and valid points which have been raised in our discussion.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Foley: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to what has been a fruitful and interesting debate. We have covered a wide range of subjects, some related to the Bill, others going a little further into realms of conjecture and all kinds of possibilities.
At the outset I give a categorical assurance that the delay in introducing the Bill, which is due largely to the pressure on the Parliamentary timetable, has not, to our knowledge, caused any injury to anyone, either in relation to citizenship under Clause 1, or in relation to divorce proceedings under Clause 2. I shall refer to these matters again as I pick up the various points which were raised.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) referred particularly to people having no option at the time of independence. If we take this to its logical conclusion, I do not know where we get ourselves in terms of our responsibility. It is true that to some people independence means a great deal. To others it means what they want it to mean.
I happened to be in Tanganyika prior to, and at the time of its independence. What we have to be very clear about is

that in virtually every village, and certainly in the towns, people were conscious of what was happening, and I think that this is so in many countries when they achieve their independence. There is an enormous impact at the time of independence, and I do not think that the argument that they did not know, or that they were not told what was going on, can be regarded as valid in respect of their citizenship or their consciousness of belonging to their nation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was thinking about the expatriates, the people with property or shops in Tanganyika, rather than the indigenous poulation.

Mr. Foley: if the hon. Gentleman looks for himself he will find that there are expatriates who have taken out Tanzanian citizenship, and others who are working there as British citizens, just as there are Asians in the same position. The idea that they were somehow all cajoled or curtailed in their liberties is not correct. There was no question of them not knowing what they could and could not do. As time goes on, and as the nation-building process is established, we start to get stresses and tensions between those who belong and those who are lodgers, sometimes invited and sometimes uninvited, and it is at that stage that people have to make up their mind, This is where we may find that there is from time to time some measure of tension.
A number of hon. Members referred to Clause 2 and asked whether divorces dealt with under this Clause are valid. What we are doing in this Bill is taking retrospective action over the last two years. What has happened in relation to Comonwealth citizenship or in relation to divorces is accepted as valid. There is no question of going back and altering decisions which have been taken. Only about 40 people are involved in this question of divorce, and we have no evidence that there has been any injury or harm to them during this period because of any measure of uncertainty. I shall be very surprised to learn that any of them knew there was such a thing as uncertainty.
On Clause 3, the question was raised about Tanzanian and British ships, and the date. The date mentioned in the Bill, 26th April, 1964, was the date of


the union between the two Republics of Zanzibar and Tanganyika. It is operative in this respect because until then the citizens of these two member countries of the Commonwealth were British subjects for the purpose of United Kingdom law. There was created this new situation which we are now trying to legalise and put right. I am not a lawyer, and I am sure that the lawyers present will quickly pick me up on this one. What we are doing is substituting "Tanzania" where previously we had "Tanganyika" and "Zanzibar".
In terms of shipping, we have to look at this in this sense of our definition of what is British. The status of a ship is determined by the national status of its owner, and it is for this reason that there is a complication. Just as Clause 1 establishes the new relationship of Commonwealth citizens, so Clause 3 to all intents and purposes makes them—and we would so regard them—British subjects in the Commonwealth sense. To avoid them being caught up as part and parcel of our existing shipping legislation we have to make an exception, and this is what Clause 3 tries to do. I am not sure whether I have convinced the hon. Gentleman, but I think that we shall find time to discuss this again.
Clause 4 relates to enabling powers and whether the Orders in Council should be subject to the negative procedure or the positive procedure. No one is trying to hide anything in terms of what is involved. There are a number of Orders in Council. I can give instances of some which must be introduced—the Import Duties Act, 1958, the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act, 1907, and the Companies Act, 1948. That is the kind of Order in Council that is involved, and I am sure that if at any stage the House felt that it was being misled or taken up a dark alley in relation to Orders in Council it would quickly bring the Minister to book. It is for the convenience of the House that these can be discussed under the negative procedure. They are before the House, and if it is deemed necessary and desirable they can be debated and voted upon. But they are innocuous and stem from existing legislation.
The stirring words of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) will be recorded in HANSARD and

we can look at them again. Some of the things he said have been echoed by many. The fact that some have questioned and been cautious does not take away from the quality and stature of Julius Nyerere, the President of Tanzania.
There are provisions for nothing else but the trust fund established for the Sultan, and I do not want to go over what was said by whom and why. At the time of the coup in Zanzibar, the Sultan arrived here penniless with his family, and it was felt necessary to provide for his immediate and longer-term needs. The trust fund was established and there was a Supplementary Vote. It is outside the control of Government. It is not for me, on a Bill like this, to discuss the situation of any other refugees from the Commonwealth who have found their way to this country, other than to say that we have offered them our friendship and a home.
Some hon. Members have mentioned the degree of reality or otherwise in the state of union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The extent and pace of integration are matters for the Tanzanians themselves. Clearly, progress has been made in some fields and in others there are grounds for anxiety. Also, there is widespread support for President Nyerere both on the mainland and in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. This support is fostered by Tanu, the political party on the mainland and by the Afro-Shirazi party of Zanzibar and Pemba, both of which have similar interests in trying to carry out the twin aims of the Arusha Declaration in terms of African Socialism and self-reliance. While stresses and strains exist, this union is real it will not break up, but will develop further. President Nyerere will exercise his total influence, if it is not already there, over the component parts.
The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked whether I was sure that no British people or British-protected persons were in prison in Zanzibar. We have no evidence to show this.
The British protected persons in Zanzibar at the time of independence became Zanzibar citizens, without exception. There were exceptions on the mainland, and some had the chance to opt out. This is the reason for the difference in Clause 1(3). Clearly, the exercise of


government and the administration of justice are matters for the Tanzanians and not for this Bill, but, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) said, there are good and positive signs, as well as some unhappy legacies in this union. The hon. Member rightly chose to refer to the positive side as well.
I can assure him that, in the last few months, there has been a warming of the relations between Britain and Tanzania. Stemming from Arusha, the banks were nationalised. I am pleased to say that compensation agreements have now been concluded to everyone's satisfaction. There are still some outstanding matters relating to the large sisal industries and to insurance, I believe. It is not so much that the will is not there but that trained personnel in Tanzania are lacking. I am assured that things are moving forward in this respect, and I echo what the hon. Member said.
In President Nyerere, we have one of the most outstanding leaders in Africa and the Commonwealth. From the word "go", even with the limited natural resources in his country, he has taken as the symbol of his independence, "Uhuru Nakazi", "Freedom and work". The mood seems to be that, if they are to get on in their country, they must work and build. The President's Arusha Declaration is an outstanding example to many others in Africa, faced with the strains and stresses on their resources of newly-gained independence, of how they must set about their problems. This, I believe, is what he is doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

COMMISSIONS TO INQUIRE INTO PLANNING MATTERS AFFECTING SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND

(1) The Ministers may constitute a Joint Planning Inquiry Commission to inquire into and report on any matter referred to them under this section; and the matters which may be so referred are those which may, under section 61 of this Act or section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, be referred to a Planning Inquiry Commission but which appear to the Ministers to involve considerations affecting both Scotland and England.

(2) A Joint Planning Inquiry Commission shall consist of a chairman and not less than two nor more than four other members appointed by the Ministers.

(3) The Ministers may pay to the members of any such commission such remuneration and allowances as they may with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service determine, and may provide for each such commission such officers or servants, and such accommodation, as appears to them expedient to provide for the purpose of assisting the commission in the discharge of their functions.

(4) The validity of any proceedings of any such commission shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members of the commission or by any defect in the appointment of any member.

(5) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (commissions, tribunals and other bodies all members of which are disqualified under that Act), in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order:—
'A Joint Planning Inquiry Commission constituted under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969'.

(6) In this section 'the Ministers' means the Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, acting jointly; but their functions under subsection (3) of this section may, by arrangements made between them, be exercised by either acting on behalf of both.

(7) Schedule (Joint Planning Inquiry Commissions) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Joint Planning Inquiry Commissions and references to them under this section, and with respect to the proceedings of a commission on any such reference.—[Mr. Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments 31, 32 and 39.

5.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) asked what procedure would be followed if a local planning authority in the Border area wished to consider in its plan the interaction with its own land of land lying across the Border in England, and whether there would be joint consultation and arrangements between the planning authorities affected.
Local planning authorities have an obligation, under Clause 2(3)(b) to relate their proposals for development to proposals for development and use of land in neighbouring districts, in so far as these are likely to affect their own district, and where the neighbouring district lies across the Border, this could, I suppose, conveniently be secured by administrative arrangements. There is no need for an Amendment for that purpose, but, in the course of discussion of the point, the Minister of State accepted that there might be a case for providing that planning inquiry commissions, which are constituted under Clause 60, could look into matters affecting an area which straddled the Border or into matters of major importance to Scotland and England. He undertook to see whether suitable Amendments to the Bill should be prepared to meet this contingency. Having considered the point, we feel it desirable to make this Amendment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and those who supported him for having raised this matter so persuasively.
The new Clause and the new Schedule provide for the setting up of a Joint Planning Inquiry Commission to inquire into matters of common interest to the two countries. Such a Commission would be constituted by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, acting jointly. It would have exactly the same powers and procedures concerning an area straddling the Border as a commission dealing with an area wholly in one country or the other.
These provisions were approved for Scotland by the Standing Committee on 13th May and are based on precisely the same lines as the corresponding provisions applying to England and Wales. This means that as well as having special commissions to deal with matters of this kind in England and in Scotland, we can have a joint commission to deal with joint inquiries concerning both countries.
A commission of this type might look at, for example, proposals for the Solway barrage, a gas or oil pipe line, major tourist projects and other major developments affecting both England and Scotland. The Amendments which we are considering with the new Clause are purely consequential. I am sure that the House will agree that we are putting forward a desirable proposal.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I welcome the new Clause, and since I spoke in Committee when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) raised the matter originally, it might be helpful if I commented at this stage. "I his is an interesting proposal, although I doubt whether the Commission will be used on many occasions. Its services will be required only on major projects.
We in Scotland have a somewhat different legal system as well as a different financial structure from that of England. Perhaps there will be a closer relationship between the two once Wheatley and Maud have been digested by both Houses of Parliament.
I was interested, when reading the part of the Bill to which the new Clause will apply, to speculate what effect the Commission would have had on a project like the Solway barrage, which affects both Cumberland and Dumfriesshire. The Sol-way barrage concept has been investigated in a feasibility study established by the Secretary of State. Would this Commission have been called in on that project, had it been in existence?
We gather that the Commission will have power to investigate considerations relevant to it or technical and scientific aspects of anything that it considers to be relevant. It will be unnecessary for the Commission to duplicate the work done by a feasibility study and I hope that such duplication will not occur because that would only increase the time factor.
While welcoming this proposal, I wish to place on record the friendly relations that exist between county councils on either side of the Border; for example, between Dumfries and Cumberland, no doubt between Berwick and Northumberland, and between Roxburgh and both Cumberland and Northumberland. Dumfries County Council meets Cumberland whenever a joint project is under consideration. This has particularly been the case over the A74 road from Glasgow to Carlisle. Indeed, there has been such close co-operation that the first one-and-a-half mile section into England is being built by Dumfries County Council because this is considered to be the best way of proceeding.
We are today speaking of major projects. How far down the line does the Secretary of State envisage the Commission operating? In other words, would its services have been used for this A74 project, which has already been discussed amicably? I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking more of major projects like the Solway barrage and some of the regional surveys which have been carried out in Scotland in the last few years.
I regard the establishment of the Commission as a valuable insurance policy to be held in reserve lest there be disagreement between England and Scotland at county council level. For this reason it is a useful instrument which, though likely to be seldom needed, will be able to resolve outstanding difficulties speedily.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the careful consideration which he has given to the query which I raised in Committee. The new Clause covers exactly the point I had in mind and while not knowing a great deal about this part of the Border, I am sure that the proposed machinery is necessary and will prove ideal when local authorities on either side of the Border wish to have joint planning schemes.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: It is clear that the whole House welcomes the new Clause. This proposal is not only an innovation but a useful

one, although the scope for its application is no doubt limited. Presumably it will apply only to major projects.
The Secretary of State referred to projects like oil pipeline. I understand that matters of that kind are dealt with under separate legislation and that they do not come within planning legislation. However, a project like the Solway barrage or similar developments in Berwick or Tweed would, no doubt, be instances of when the Commission would come into play.
Am I right in understanding that there is no necessity for consequential amendments to the English legislation on this subject? We are setting up a joint commission under the Bill and that will cover both countries. If amending legislation for England is not required, and since this innovation is being made through Scottish legislation, I trust that a substantial number of any enquiries that arise will be held in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I understand there is no need to duplicate the legislation; and when moving the new Clause I explained the joint rôle of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
This provision is a safeguard and can be considered an essential weapon in our planning armoury. I agree that it will not be used on every occasion. Indeed, first indications are, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out in Committee, that there are excellent relations between neighbouring authorities. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) pointed out, his county council, as agents of the Government, is doing the work on the first one-and-a-half miles into England of the A 74.
I regard this as an important new Clause because if a major scheme of development was under way and various considerations had to be borne in mind—land use on both sides of the Border and so on—a commission of this kind might be useful. I am obliged to hon. Members for the welcome they have given the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION UNDER S. 12 OF THE ACT OF 1947

Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission under section 12 of the Act of 1947 the authority shall not proceed to consider the application unless they are satisfied that notification of the application has been made to the owners and the occupiers, where such are known, of heritable subjects adjoining those in respect of which the application is made.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 30 in page 70, line 39, at beginning insert:
(1) A development order may make provision for requiring applicants for planning permission for development or for any class of development prescribed by or under the order to furnish at such time and to such persons as may be so prescribed such information with respect to the application as may be so prescribed.

Mr. Campbell: Hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee will recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) raised, at the 11th sitting of the Committee, an important matter which the Minister of State when replying recognised as important and which his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) described in the same sense. We are now trying again, in a more limited way, to remedy a situation which both sides of the House, and certainly both sides of the Committee, recognise as needing improvement.
The position is that under Section 12 of the 1947 Act a request for planning permission to change the use of land can be submitted and granted without any of those who have a particular interest and who would be affected by what happens hearing about it until the whole matter has been decided. If the application for planning permission is refused and that refusal is accepted by the applicant, nothing more happens, but,

if the applicant appeals, the matter goes to the Secretary of State, there is a public inquiry, and opportunity for those in the area who are affected to hear about it.
In our previous attempt to put this situation right my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) put forward a proposal which would have required wide publicity. All those who could be interested would have been required to be informed. This new Clause represents a more limited attempt. It proposes that only those who are owners or occupiers of adjoining property should be notified. Those people will clearly be interested, and probably more interested in the application than anyone else. We therefore hope that in the light of our previous discussion the Government will be able to look with favour on this proposal.
In that previous debate, the Minister of State said that he would see whether he could find a way of improving the position, and I note that the Government have tabled Amendment No. 30, which we are also discussing. No doubt the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of explaining that Amendment and of telling us whether it has the same purpose.
In Committee, the Minister of State found some fault with our new Clause—with the drafting, as usual, as well as with the substance—but I hope that in the light of our discussion he will find this present new Clause more acceptable. I trust that we can in some way make an alteration which will deal with a very difficult matter which has caused a great deal of grievance on various occasions in Scotland, when planning permission is granted, and other people owning adjoining property only hear later of the application without having any opportunity of objecting to it, or in any way make representations or, indeed, alter their own plans or themselves make any kind of provision to meet the new situation.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I agree that this is a very important and difficult matter. It is not a close secret among local authorities in Scotland that the working party which examined the subject for two years found it to be one of the most difficult things to deal with


We are all aware of the strength of feeling, and that feeling was demonstrated by a number of members of the Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Hon. Members on both sides accepted that it was not quite fair that the first information a householder should get of the fact that his next-door neighbour proposed to change the use of his premises should be a copy of the application to the building authority for structural alterations; in other words, that the building changes should be announced before the householder knew that any planning change had taken place, and that when he raised the matter he should be told that planning permission had been granted and that there was nothing he could do about it. It is because of this sense of grievance that we struggled with the subject in Committee, and are now discussing it again in connection with this new Clause and Amendment No. 30.
6.15 p.m.
There is an argument against doing anything at all because of the danger of complicating the machinery of planning and causing delay. There is always that argument, and I should like the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) and his hon. Friends, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East to accept from me that it has been very difficult in the very short time that has been available—though that is not their fault—to consult everyone whom we would have liked to have consulted in order to get the matter absolutely right and agreed, and as sensible and workable as it could be.
If I criticise the new Clause, it is not because of its spirit but because I do not think it wise to include it in the Bill. It has a number of defects. For example, it would be wrong to leave any uncertainty about the method of notification. It would be wrong to leave uncertain what time should be given for notification to be effective. Nor can we just skate over the meaning of the word "adjoining". The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) would be the first to agree that the definition of "adjoining" as distinct from, say, "affected proprietors", or "interests of occupiers", and so on, is a matter of substance that is not covered by

the new Clause. I do not blame the authors of the new Clause, but I do not think it wise to make it part of the Bill.
I suggest that, instead, we take the enabling power proposed by our Amendment No. 30 to Clause 77. That Amendment would give the Government the right to examine the subject with the many bodies concerned—and particularly when the Skeffington Committee on public participation in planning reports, as I hope it will do next month—to see how we shall apply the general principles in the Bill which seek to give better publicity to, and more public participation in, planning. I suggest that that would be the right way to go about things.
I do not think that the two sides differ in their objective in this matter of procedure. I accept that to adopt the enabling power would leave the matter to be resolved by regulation, but I hope that the Opposition will appreciate that there is no difference of view between us that something has to be done to try to meet the point, difficult as it is and complex as it is. It merits a good deal of examination by all those concerned, including those who, may I say, are not as convinced as we are that there is a balance in the case here, and who may not, as they feel, want to complicate the machinery of planning.
It is in that amicable spirit that I suggest that the Opposition should not press the new Clause but should, instead, agree to the enabling power proposed in our Amendment No. 30.

Mr. Wylie: We are grateful to the Minister of State for his remarks. Our difficulty in Committee, as he will be aware, is that we could only seek a remedy by means of a new Clause, which, of necessity, came at the end of our deliberations. I readily accept that the Government have not had a great deal of time to consider the implications of the proposal, though the need for a change is widely recognised. The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and other members of the Committee, were quite clear about that.
The trouble is that this is an omission in the 1947 Act which has, for some reason, survived the vicissitudes of change and the endeavours of various Governments to put it right. I am glad that


the Government recognise the need for a change here, and intend as far as they can to commit themselves to making that change.
The Clause is probably not in proper form because we do not have Parliamentary draftsmen on our side of the House, but we do our best. One should always recognise one's own limitations and I readily recognise that the Clause is not in proper form, but there are other repercussions which have to be considered. Suppose an application is made under Section 12 of the 1947 Act and intimated in the prescribed form and objections are lodged. Is the planning authority on its own initiative to have another inquiry? These ramifications of the proposal should be considered. I hope they will be considered and that it will be seen that on balance it is better to have this done by enabling powers in this way. Clearly there have to be discussions and the full implications should be thought out.
I am content with the assurance given by the Minister of State. I hope that this matter will not be allowed to remain in a pigeon-hole but that some regulations will follow in the reasonably near future because this is a problem which is very real and which affects many people, particularly in large urban areas. The solution to it is long overdue.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I recognise that the Minister of State said that the Government had to deal with this matter in some haste. We saw the Government Amendment on the Notice Paper only yesterday. I recognise the reasons for that. My hon. and learned Friend has stated that we are prepared to accept the Government Amendment. We are glad that some progress is to be made. Clearly much has still to be thought out, but this marks a milestone on the way to getting the matter put right and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

NOTIFICATION OF PLANNING PROPOSALS TO OWNERS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANTS

(1) Where a local planning authority, by virtue of, or any alteration to, a structure plan or a local plan, or after the commencement

of this Act by virtue of any alterations or additions to a development plan in force in the area, propose the redevelopment of land in agricultural use, or in use as open space, they shall serve a notice containing their proposals on the owners of the land and on the tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in the land to which the proposals relate, where such are known.

(2) In this section the expression 'owner' and 'agricultural holding' have the meanings assigned to them by section 36(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1959.—[Mr. Wylie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause seeks to correct what appears to have been an omission in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1959. Section 36 provided that if someone proposes development, makes application for planning permission under the 1947 Act, he has to intimate the application to the owner or owners of the lands to which the application relates, unless he himself is the owner.
Section 36(1)(b) says that he must provide
a certicate stating that the applicant has given the requisite notice of the application to all the persons (other than the applicant)
who were owners of land. There is provision in subsection (3) of the Section dealing with the interest of tenants of agricultural holdings. They likewise have to be given notice of the proposals. Accordingly, a very serious omission from the 1947 Act was covered in so far as the specific provision was made that in an application for planning permission the owners of land and any tenant farmers on the land must be notified of the application. It could not be considered by the planning authority until that authority was satisfied that the intimation or notification had been made.
A problem arises where there is a change in the zoning of an area of land in the development plan. That is not an application for planning permission for which under the provisions to which I have referred notification has to be made. This is where the local planning authority decides in its own development plan to make an alteration or addition and to rezone, perhaps for residential purposes, an area of land at present in agricultural use or used as an open space. It can and


does happen, since owners and tenant farmers do not always keep themselves fully abreast of proposals by the local planning authority, that a change of zoning is made and they know nothing about it.
It is easy to say that they ought to know, that they ought to look at the newspapers to see what is going on, or to examine the town map or the county map, but it happens that through oversight on the part of the owner, or particularly the tenant of an agricultural holding, these changes are made and the interested parties are not aware of them. If planning permission in principle is given without opposition and without knowledge on the part of the interested parties, the protection given by Section 36 of the 1959 Act is rather hollow. If a developer makes an application for planning permission for the development of an area in accordance with the existing use by reference to planning proposals it is inconceivable that the application will be refused. It could not be refused subject to satisfactory layout.
This matter has been drawn to my attention and it seems that there is an omission which should be rectified. I fully appreciate that it would be quite impracticable in the ordinary course of urban development to draw the attention of all interested parties to the proposals contained in the town plan. That is why the Clause is confined to land in agricultural use or open space—virgin land. The object of the Clause, which I daresay is defective in drafting, is to provide that where virgin land is to be the subject of rezoning in the town or county plan the owners of the land and any tenant farmers on it shall be notified of the proposals. There is not a multiplicity of ownership in these circumstances and it seems perfectly practicable for a local authority to discharge that obligation, which, in many cases, is analogous to the obligation already laid upon them by Section 36 of the 1959 Act. We hope that the Government will look sympathetically upon this Clause even though there may be defects in its drafting.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. It

may be that this matter was touched on in some way there, although from what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) has said it seems that this deficiency in the Bill has been only recently brought to his notice.
If I understand the present statutory position aright there is no requirement on a local planning authority to bring to the notice of owners or occupiers of agricultural land, recreational land or open space the impact on that land of any re-zoning proposal by the local planning authority. I was not aware of that deficiency. If it exists, it should be remedied.
My hon. and learned Friend rightly said that owners or tenants of farming land so affected would have an opportunity to make their views known, but would be able to do so only if they lighted upon the public announcement of the local authority's intention. The 1959 Act imposes the requirement to advertise such a proposal. A farmer or tenant who sees such an advertisement would know what is to happen.
If I am right up to this point, the Minister will agree that if the advertisement appeared in local newspapers it might well not be seen by the farmer or tenant and he might innocently overlook the effect of the proposal on the land owned or farmed by him or the land in which he has an interest, if only as a user for recreational purposes. He might have no indication of the effect on him, on his life, and possibly on his livelihood of the proposal.
I am sometimes concerned about the way in which we rely on citizens to find things out for themselves. Where possible, the intentions of the Government or of a local authority should be brought to the notice of those who will be affected by the intentions if they are carried out, so that those concerned have the opportunity to pursue the course of protest or argument which is provided for by Statute.
In view of the life which farmers lead, they could innocently overlook the public advertisement of the planning authority's intentions. I live in farming country. I know, as does my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), the busy life which a farmer leads. We know how much


busier he has become in recent years, thanks to the Government's mismanagement in agriculture.

Mr. George Willis: No.

Mr. MacArthur: If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees, let him visit a few farms and see how busy farmers are. They do not have time to read the small print in the newspaper which will carry the advertisement. They are too busy calculating their selective employment tax and filling up the necessary forms.
It would be unreasonable to rely on the present procedure to bring the attention of farmers and tenants to the planning authority's proposal. If my understanding of the position is correct, it must be reasonable that the Bill should impose a requirement on the planning authority actively to call the attention of the farmer or tenant to its proposal. That protecion for the citizen should be written into the Bill.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I shall not waste time by quarrelling with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), which were extraneous to this argument. I accept the argument which he and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) advanced that farmers and tenants can miss many intimations made under present legislation.
It is important that publicity should be better, not only for those concerned in the new Clause, but for the generality of the population—in Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman coined the phrase "the planned as distinct from the planners"—but I do not think that the Clause is the right way of achieving his object. Under Clause 13(1), the Secretary of State is armed with considerable power to make regulations. These need not be regulations to be generally applied. They can be regulations which are specific to specific interests.
I imagine that the report of the Skeffington Committee will highlight, not only the problems we are discussing now, but other problems affecting other legitimate interests such as farming which should be dealt with in special ways. I cannot at this stage discuss the recommendations of the Skeffington Committee,

because they will not be out until the end of next month.
We regard Clause 13(1) as an important power. We understand the position enunciated in the new Clause, but it would be wrong, because it is always a reflection on others, to tie the Secretary of State to one publicity obligation to one interest in one way. It is better to leave it open so that the Secretary of State can by administrative means and by the exercise of his powers using regulations made under Clause 13(1) get the right answer.
I am sure that the answer will be through the report of the Skeffington Committee and that hon. Members will wish the regulations arising from it to be effective. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire will serve his constituents better if he recognises that the report of the Skeffington Committee is a good one which will be adopted by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and by the Secretary of State.
For these reasons I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press the Clause, but to leave it, not as an argument of principle between us, but as an argument simply as to the means by which we achieve the same thing.

Mr. Wylie: I am disappointed with that reply. There is all the difference in the world between the situation that arises in this Clause and that which arose on the previous Clause. To demonstrate our reasonableness we readily accepted in that case that it was necessary and preferable that the matter should be dealt with by regulations. Here we are dealing with a specific problem which is capable of solution.
As I said earlier, it was overlooked when the 1959 legislation was prepared. After all, there are specific proposals in the Section of the 1959 Act to which I referred. Those proposals specifically relate to the situation which arises when an application for planning permission is made. That is substantive law; it is on the Statute Book. It will not be altered by regulations.
What we have been asking the hon. Gentleman to do is to finish the process which was started in the 1959 Act and cover the gap which arises, I think through inadvertence, where a re-zoning of a development plan takes place. There


are at this moment no statutory provisions to deal with that.
If the Minister of State takes the view, as I understood him to, that there is ground for complaint, that there is a defect in the existing legislation, but that it is desirable to deal with it by regulation, I cannot agree. In the context of those proposals it is better here and now to remedy a shortcoming in the 1959 Act along the lines indicated in the Clause. It is not appropriate to fill this gap by reference to regulations.
There was repeated reference in Committee to the fact that regulations would be made. The Minister will be very busy over the next few months or years making regulations under the Bill when enacted. Good luck to him. I accept that in many ways the proper way to deal with planning is by regulations. The pattern was set in the 1947 Act. The regulations

made under that legislation became more significant than the Statute itself. But this is not an appropriate case. This is not a problem which can appropriately be dealt with by regulations.

Despite the recognition which the Minister appears to have given to the need for statutory provisions, the time to deal with this problem is now. I have discussed the matter with some of my colleagues at the Scottish Bar who are familiar with the whole problem of planning in Scotland, and if it were not for the unanimity of view among them I would not be disposed to press the new Clause. But, in the circumstances, I feel disposed to do so.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 176.

Division No. 246.]
AYES
[6.40 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pardoe, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hn. sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Biggs, Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hordern, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Johnson smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Smith, John (London &amp; Westminster)


Bryan, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kershaw, Anthony
Summers, Sir Spencer


Chataway, Christopher
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neil
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Cordle, John
Lane, David
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lubbock, Eric
Waddington, David


Dalkeith, Earl of
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Weatherill, Bernard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Dean, Paul
Mawby, Ray
Wiggin, A. W.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott,R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Errington, Sir Eric
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Farr, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wylie, N. R.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nott, John
Mr. Jasper More and


Gower, Raymond
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Grant, Anthony






NOES


Albu, Austen
Gardner, Tony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Millian, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Gregory, Arnold
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Neal, Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Heseldine, Norman
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Park, Trevor


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horner, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howie, W.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeer, N.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Coe, Denis
Hunter, Adam
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Coleman, Donald
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rankin, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Sheldon, Robert


Delargy, Hugh
Judd, Frank
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dewar, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dickens, James
Lawson, George
Small, William


Dobson Ray
Leadbitter, Ted
Snow, Julian


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)




Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Wallace, George


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Whitaker, Ben


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Williams. W. T. (Warrington)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Woof, Robert


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)



Forrester, John
Manuel, Archie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mapp, Charles
Mr. John McCann and


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

New Clause 4

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE TO HAVE EFFECT AGAINST SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT

.—(1) Compliance with an enforcement notice, whether in respect of—

(a) the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works, or
(b) the discontinuance of any use of land,

or in respect of any other requirements contained in the enforcement notice, shall not discharge the enforcement notice.

(2) Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, any provision of an enforcement notice

requiring a use of land to be discontinued shall operate as a requirement that it shall be discontinued permanently, to the extent that it is in contravention of Part III of this Act; and accordingly the resumption of that use at any time after it has been discontinued in compliance with the enforcement notice shall to that extent be in contravention of the enforcement notice.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, if any development is carried out on land by way of reinstating or restoring buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with an enforcement notice, the notice shall, notwithstanding that its terms are not apt for the purpose be deemed to apply in relation to the buildings or works as reinstated or restored as it applied in relation to


the buildings or works before they were demolished or altered.

(4) A person who, without the grant of planning permission in that behalf, carries out any development on land by way of reinstating or restoring buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with an enforcement notice shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.—[Mr. Willis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I should like to make a correction to the Clause. The reference to Part III in subsection (2) should be a reference to Part II.
The Clause seeks to ensure that an enforcement notice shall have effect against subsequent development. During the Committee stage I received representations from Midlothian County Council drawing to the fact that there was no certainty as to the position after an enforcement notice had been served and had been complied with. The council said that this created certain difficulties. It said that the position had not been made clear in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or since, but that south of the Border a provision had been included in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, to deal with this matter. Local authorities in Scotland are at a certain disadvantage in this respect, because they do not know how they stand and can find out only by taking a case as far as the Court of Session.
At present, to make an enforcement notice effective, if a person on whom it is served fails to comply with it, the matter has to be reported to the Procurator Fiscal and the matter goes to the sheriff's court in respect of a statutory offence. This is likely to involve delay. Meanwhile, it is easy for a person who has failed to comply with a notice to continue to fail to comply. If the local authority takes the matter to the sheriff's court, it has to spend money to enforce the notice and, as far as anyone knows, a few weeks afterwards the man may commit the same offence and the procedure has to be repeated by the authority. As the Bill stands, this could go on ad infinitum.
I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister of State about this and he very kindly put it to his officials. I have received a letter from him which did not give me much satisfaction. It was altogether a bit of a sloppy affair. He said that there was an opportunity to do something about this in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, but nothing was done and the decision was deliberate—
based on the fact that no practical difficulties had then arisen or were expected to arise in Scotland from the want of such a pro-vision. This expectation has been justified because there has not been a single case in Scotland.
My hon. Friend went on to add what I regard as the crowning slipshod argument:
On balance, however, I would not feel justified—and I am sure you will agree—in adding a page and a half to the Bill to deal with a problem which does not seem to have arisen in Scotland.
My hon. Friend cannot have been aware of all the facts because the matter was taken up with me by the Midlothian County Council precisely because of its difficulties. I sent my hon. Friend's letter to the council and asked for comments and the council was rather annoyed about the letter. It pointed out that it had experienced a number of these cases and said that difficulties of this kind were constantly occurring.
The writer of the letter went on to give an example of action twice taken in connection with a large field used for the dumping of prefabricated materials. The two occasions related to the same person and the same offence and it took more than three years before there was compliance, because of the lack of clarity. The writer said that local authorities would clearly not go to the Court of Session to find out exactly what the position was unless there were a situation which would justify the expenditure of the large sum involved.
This is an important matter. I do not know how close to the ground in Scotland my hon. Friend has his ear, but one of the major problems in Scotland at present is the opening of caravan sites all over the Highland area, sites which have no control.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I have such a case now.

Mr. Willis: There is serious concern about the spread of caravan sites in the Highlands. As the law stands, anyone may start a caravan site. He may wait until a local authority serves an enforcement notice to discontinue the use of the caravan site, but meanwhile the summer will have passed and he may pack up for the winter and carry on next year. There is nothing to prevent that. This could destroy Scotland.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman does not know much about Scotland. He would do better to conserve the two votes which he has in Peterborough than to try to conserve the Scottish countryside.

Mr. James Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has raised an important issue by referring to caravan sites. I shall not talk about caravan sites. However, when a local authority is confronted by a person who puts a caravan on to a site, the authority may take the necessary action to serve an enforcement notice, but the following day another person will move to the site with another caravan and the authority will have to repeat the procedure. The new Clause would obviate that. While I am on my feet, may I say that I am amazed to find out—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet long enough for an intervention.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I do not know whether my hon. Friend will talk about caravan sites, but if there is even one caravan on a site it is a caravan site for the time being.
There is enormous difficulty controlling this development in the Highlands and in Central Scotland and the difficulties are growing and the situation which I have described is likely to occur all over the area.
The Bill should give local authorities some indication of the position once an enforcement notice has been served and the offending person has complied with it. It is not a great deal to ask. It would clarify the position and solve several problems for local authorities. Midlothian quotes the case of a dump. I

imagine that in many local authority areas pieces of land are wrongly used as dumps for old motor cars and that, following the issue of an enforcement notice, the person concerned uses it again. This is not unlikely. The whole question of refuse dumping, of old motor cars and builders' refuse, is urgent. This problem does arise and will continue to arise, probably more frequently in future, because of the growing need for areas like this and for caravan sites.
I could quote many other instances. I cannot see why, for the sake of half a page in the Bill, we should refuse to deal with this. That seems a reasonable request. It would meet one of the difficulties of Midlothian over the operation of the 1947 Act—and I do not suppose that Midlothian is unique. Fancy sending a letter saying, in effect, "We could not be bothered in 1960 and we cannot be bothered now, and even if we could, would it be worth while, since it would take up a page of a Bill?" After all, Acts of Parliament are full of Clauses which are seldom used and which one hopes will not be used, but we have passed through the Scottish Standing Committee a number of Clauses to help local authorities. That is what this Clause would seek to do.
I do not quote England as an example. The need is a Scottish need. I do not care whether they have such a Clause in the English Bill. Midlothian has established a case for such a Clause in the Scottish Bill. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will look with favour on the Clause. He will notice that the drafting is superb. If the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) ever wants to hire a draftsman, he might bear this in mind. It might not read right but it seems to meet the issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept it, thereby giving some guidance and help to Scottish local authorities.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I support the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), particularly for his attack on the Minister of State. To have a former Minister of State referring to the efforts of his successor as "slipshod" is a sad indication of where we have come to in Scottish administration, and falls far short of the standard of invective which we


have come to expect from the party opposite.
I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman doubted the adequacy of the new Clause. If it is adequate, it should not take up a full page of the Bill, which he suggests is the Minister's main reason for rejecting this sensible provision. The case is valid. Caravan sites as such do not destroy the countryside. We need more and better such sites. Anything that we can do, here and outside, to encourage the highest standards in these sites, the better for our visitors and for the reputation of Scotland. But where there is abuse, as there can be at present, we should deal with it. I hope that the Minister of State will consider that.

Mr. Eadie: I would rather that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) had not spoken in support of the Clause, because of his opening words. We want my hon. Friend to accept the Clause and do not want to be too hard on him. I did not have the pleasure of being on the Committee, but I know that my hon. Friend has been helpful. When I made my speech on Second Reading, he agreed to accept one of the propositions of Midlothian, which has greatly strengthened the Bill. But, after that, he should consider any other suggestions from this, the premier county of Scotland.
This is a new Bill and it is not good enough to say that something has not happened before, and that, by use and want, we have got by all right. Midlothian is a booming county, industrially, as is the whole of Scotland. My hon. Friend must realise that we are entitled to examine a new piece of legislation to see whether we should correct it and think ahead about future legislation. In many areas of Scotland there are problems because of the tremendous increase in the use of the motor car. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) mentioned the superb drafting, which we did with the aid of two or three pins and a duplicating machine. The motor car point is valid.
If someone proposed to make a junk yard and there was a weakness about enforcement notices, every hon. Member would regret that we had not made sure in this Bill that there would be no

anomaly and that planning authorities were not confused about whether to issue enforcement notices. In Loanhead, there is such a case of a caravan site, as the Minister of State knows. It is a complicated case and I will not go into it, but anything which can strengthen the legal authority of the planning authority in Midlothian or any other county of Scotland would surely be a good thing. Contrary to the belief of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, I believe that my hon. Friend is always amenable to reason. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and myself putting what I believe to be a very strong case, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I agree with the Minister that it is not advisable to be too specific in a Bill and that we should leave some latitude. However, could not the point outlined in the new Clause be covered by regulations? If so, that would appear to be a better way of dealing with it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I wrote the letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) because from 1956 until the date of writing it we had not had notice in the Scottish Office of any kind of evasion. I do not blame my right hon. Friend for not letting me have the note from Midlothian in time. He did not give the date, but I am sure that he received it only a few days ago. Unfortunately, we are at a minute to twelve in parliamentary terms concerning the Bill, and it is difficult for me to accept the new Clause when there is one, and only one, defect in it.
I congratulate my colleagues on devising the new Clause. Strangely, it brings an echo to my mind of Section 51 of the English Planning Act of 1962. No doubt that is a wicked and mischievous thought on my part. It is almost a straight copy of Section 51.

Mr. Willis: It is a copy, but all the points with which we are not concerned have been deleted.

Dr. Mabon: I am glad to hear that self-confession by my right hon. Friend. However, the new Clause should refer to Part II of the 1947 Act. The fact that it refers to Part III may be a printer's error.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Subsection (2) of the new Clause refers to contravention of Part III of the Bill. It should refer to Part II of the 1947 Act. If it is possible to make that alteration at this stage, I am willing to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Speaker: I would be willing to accept a manuscript Amendment if it were to commend itself to the House.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps a manuscript Amendment would meet the need. I do not apologise for butting in on Scottish affairs after the way in which Scottish Members tried to dominate the discussion on the reorganisation of local government in England earlier today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a good memory, but we must not deal with that now.

Mr. Wylie: I would be the last to try to dissuade the Minister from accepting something which he believes will improve the Bill. However, it seems to have been done in such a casual way that I am wondering whether the Minister has satisfied himself on the point. There are provisions for stop notices in the Bill. Do not they meet the point of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)? I do not wish it to be thought that I am opposing the new Clause, but I should like to be satisfied that we are doing the right thing and that we are not going about it in the wrong way, with the right hon. Gentleman hastily scribbling down Amendments to his own new Clause.
Would the Minister satisfy the House on the effect of the stop notice procedure? On the face of it, it goes a long way towards meeting the objections of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. Like the Minister, I have never heard of any shortcomings in the procedure. No one has suggested to me that the enforcement procedure under the Statute has not operated satisfactorily. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned difficulties in Midlothian. If there are difficulties in Midlothian, I should have thought that we would have come across them elsewhere because presumably developments in Midlothian are not unique in Scotland. I should like to be sure that the Minister is not accepting off the cuff something which he might later regret having accepted.

7.15 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The position is straightforward and simple. It was demonstrated in the case of Posthill v. East Riding County Council, in 1956, that there was a defect, and it was argued in Committee that if this was so in England and evasion was proven the Bill should be amended. The Scots sensibly said, "We do not have the problem, so we should not apply this amendment in the English law to Scotland".
When I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East there was still no problem. No county council had raised this matter formally with the Scottish Office or asked for a similar amendment to be made. On that very narrow point, I refused my right hon. Friend's request. Why provide a solution to a problem which does not exist? It seemed a sensible position for a Minister to adopt. Today, my right hon. Friend has demonstrated that there is a case for an amendment.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) referred to the English position concerning stop notices. The English have stop notices, but they still need Section 51 to close this loophole and my right hon. Friend has demonstrated that we do, too.
I do not think we should spend much more time on this point. I will move a manuscript Amendment to the new Clause changing "Part III of this Act" to "Part II of the 1947 Act." We can then adopt the new Clause.

Earl of Dalkeith: This is a most extraordinary way of legislating. I do not know whether it has ever happened before. Certain problems will arise from it. I should like to give an example. In subsection (4) of the new Clause there is reference to the penalties which will be imposed if there is contravention. No appeal against the penalties which can be imposed will lie unless consequential Amendments are made, perhaps in Clause 16. Should not consequential Amendments be made if the Amendment which the Minister proposes is accepted?

Mr. Wylie: When there is reference to summary conviction, the Acts dealing with the summary criminal procedure apply and a right of appeal is built in.

Earl of Dalkeith: Even so, we are rushing through something without considering what consequential Amendments may be needed in other parts of the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister arrived at the Dispatch Box having decided that he would accept the Amendment or having decided that he would not. I do not know whether he has with his advisers considered whether consequential Amendments may be necessary. If he has done so, and decided that they are not necessary, this is a good thing.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The noble Lord knows that, like himself, I do my homework on legislation thoroughly. I assure him that it was only on this one point that I rejected my right hon. Friend's Amendment. It is a perfectly sound Amendment except for that one small point. There is no question of my doing this unilaterally without advice. I have strong advice behind me which says that this is an Amendment which would have been good if we had had previous examples. We now have an example and it is, therefore, a good Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith: If the Amendment was a good one with the exception of this one fault, why was not the necessary change put on the Notice Paper?

Mr. Speaker: We are getting into very deep water. We will discuss the proposed Amendment if we give the Clause a Second Reading. The Amendment will have to be moved and hon. Gentlemen can then speak about it. The question at the moment is whether we want the Clause to have a Second Reading.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: My noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has raised a real point. It would help the House if the Minister told us when he reached a decision. The impression left on the House is that he came to the debate prepared not to accept the new Clause. Is it merely because of this one instance which has been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister is prepared now to accept the new Clause?
The Minister has spoken of the Bill as coming at one minute to midnight, but his decision seems to have come at that time. Sensible and properly thought-out

legislation will not be produced if the Minister comes to a conclusion merely on the basis of one instance brought forward at this late stage when previous evidence has been to the contrary. Will the Minister tell us what is behind this, whether he was prepared to accept the Clause before he came to the House, and whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the acceptance of the new Clause.

Mr. James Hamilton: It was not my intention to speak, but reference has been made to one local authority. As a member of a local authority for 10 years, and a member of the planning committee, I can say that this is something with which we were confronted on many occasions.
If a planning application is refused, but the applicant goes ahead and constructs the building and the local authority take enforcement action against him, another applicant may in turn apply for planning permission, in which case the application for planning permission takes priority over the enforcement order, and the procedure must be gone through again. I am told that this happens regularly in relation to caravans, and the county clerk has told me that nothing can be done about this on the basis of the 1947 Act.
If the Clause obviates circumstances of that nature, it is desirable that it should be accepted. It is not good enough to say that the 1947 Act should not be accepted as being totally valid and at the same time to pass an Act of 1969 which contains weaknesses. I hope that my hon. Friend will answer the the points I am putting forward, not on the basis of the Midlothian local authority, but on the basis of my experience as a member of the Lanarkshire local authority.

Mr. George Younger: We are being held up over a comparatively small matter. I agree with the new Clause and hope that it will be accepted. On the other hand, this is a most extraordinary way of proceeding. If we on this side were to behave in this way and produce manuscript Amendments at the last minute, the first person to raise the roof in protest would be the Minister. I can see him standing at the Box and telling us not to be superficial and careless in bringing Amendments before the House.
I am sorry that we are wasting time on the Clause. Would not the normal procedure be for the Minister to give us an assurance that he will look into this carefully and bring in an appropriate Amendment in another place—

Dr. Mabon: This is the last time.

Mr. Younger: In that case, I have a further point to make. If the Minister discovered that there was a small error in the new Clause, surely his simplest course would have been to telephone his right hon. Friend and get the error put right before coming here, thus saving a great deal of time.

Mr. MacArthur: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I do not want to discuss the merits or otherwise of the new Clause; I merely want to ask whether we should accept it at this stage. My fear is based on the unbelievably slipshod handling of the new Clause by the Government.
We cannot ask the Government to review the matter in another place since the Bill has already gone through another place and we are here at the ultimate moment. If the new Clause is not accepted now it will not be in the Bill. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his apprehension that it might not be in the Bill.
I ask the House to consider whether it is right for Parliament to legislate in this way and to accept a new Clause on the sudden whim of the Minister, particularly a defective new Clause which it is proposed to put right by a manuscript Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, said most generously that the House would accept. The Amendment was scribbled on a piece of paper, while the right hon. Gentleman was running from one bench to another, a moment ago. This is a most unfortunate way to proceed and is not the way in which legislation should be produced.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I have no doubt that, had the shoe been on the other foot, the Government would have said exactly the same about hon. Members on this side of the House as my hon. Friend is now saying about the Government. It is refreshing to know that there are occasions when something is achieved by Parliamentary debate. I am glad that Parliament

can show, even in the middle of a debate, that it can influence the course of legislation.

Mr. MacArthur: I agree with my hon. Friend. The purpose of the Clause is to create a new offence and to introduce a new fine on the citizen. Legislation of this kind should not be introduced at the last moment, in a hurry, without consideration, particularly when the Clause is being amended yet again by a manuscript Amendment which has been produced in this clumsy way. The Minister would be wise to tell the House that he accepts the principle of the Amendment and that it will be studied with greater care.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made to the proposed Clause: In subsection (2) leave out from "Part" to "and" and insert:
II of the Act of 1947."—[Dr. Mabon.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 1

SURVEY OF PLANNING DISTRICTS

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 19, at end insert:
(3) In the exercise of their functions under this section, where any part of their district includes the countryside, as defined in section 2(1) of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 a local planning authority shall consult with the Countryside Commission for Scotland.
This short Amendment to Clause 1 seeks to write in a statutory obligation on the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions under Clause 1 to consult in certain circumstances with the Countryside Commission of Scotland. The obligation is confined to the circumstances set out in the new subsection and arises only where some part or any part of the local planning authority district includes countryside as defined in the Countryside (Scotland) Act, 1967.
During the Committee stage an Amendment was put down on similar lines which sought to impose the obligation on the Secretary of State. Criticism was rightly made that if one started to


pick out one statutory body for special treatment one would have to consider the reaction and the views of other statutory bodies which may have an interest in planning and to which reference could also be made.
The Countryside Commission for Scotland is in a unique position. It is charged by the 1967 Act with a positive duty to advise and guide the local planning authority, and indeed the Secretary of State, on planning matters when a reference is made to an authority. Section 8 (1) of the 1967 Act provides:
The Commission may, and if so requested by the Secretary of State or any local planning authority shall, advise the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the authority in relation of any matter arising under he Planning Acts which affects land in the countryside".
Although we accept that there are other bodies with planning interests—some would say far too many bodies, when one remembers that the Land Commission has planning functions and that many other bodies touch on planning matters—we nonetheless feel that the Countryside Commission for Scotland is in a highly specialised position. The criticism that there may be other bodies which should equally be consulted is met by the terms of this Amendment. They restrict the obligation to consult only to those cases where a district involves or includes "countryside" as defined in the Act.
It appears to be right in principle that at the formative stage of the structure plan and when structure planning proposals are put forward there should be the maximum consultation with the Countryside Commission. If a local planning authority has no land designated as "countryside" in the terms of the 1967 Act, there is no obligation to consult and indeed no need to consult. But where the two overlap, where there is a countryside area within the boundaries of a local authority, it is only common sense that at the formative stage of their proposals an authority should consult with the Countryside Commission.
The Minister may say that the local planning authority already has power in this respect, and indeed such a power is contained in Section 8(1) of the 1967

Act. But it is only a permissive power. The local authority can go to the Countryside Commission if it wishes, but it has no obligation to do so. Likewise, it can be said that the Countryside Commission has permissive powers in Section 8(1) to give advice to any planning authority. But they may or may not do so.
In such a situation where one is reconstituting, indeed restructuring, the whole planning process in Scotland, where one is drawing a distinction between the overall structure plan and the local plan and where there is in existence a statutory body with special planning functions to perform, it is only logical that there should be a statutory duty for the local authority to consult with that statutory body in those special circumstances, namely where an area includes "countryside" as defined in the 1967 Act.
That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. It simply adds a short subsection to Clause 1. It makes provision for what one would hope would be carried out in any case. One would expect local authorities to co-operate with the Countryside Commission and vice versa. But since the need for that consultation and co-operation will be obvious and clear at the formative stage of the local planning authorities proposals, it is only right that the necessity for consultation should be recognised and should be written into the Bill.

Mr. Monro: If the Minister was able to accept new Clause 4, he will certainly be able to accept Amendment No. 1. It is much more likely to have a practical influence on planning in Scotland than the new Clause, on which he changed his mind at the ninety-ninth moment.
Those of us who helped with the Countryside Commission and who have been connected with this planning Bill will appreciate that in many spheres they are complementary. If the Countryside Commission is to play the part in the planning of Scotland that it ought to play, it must be more closely involved with the local planning committees. This Amendment will bring to the notice of the planning committees each time they deal with a matter which may affect the countryside their duties and obligations about possible effects on the Countryside Commission.
Those of us who were in Scotland last week had the opportunity to visit the forestry exhibition held outside Edinburgh. We were able to visit the exhibition tent of the Countryside Commission which was next door to that of the English Countryside Commission. It was possible to draw certain conclusions from the different displays and to evaluate the work of both Commissions. These ideas should be brought home to county and burgh planning committees, and then they can work in much closer co-operation.
A great deal of talk has gone on in the last few years about increasing recreation opportunities, particularly in the Highlands. In many cases we have been delighted at the progress which has been made. But if the Countryside Commission is to play its part in developing recreation facilities in conjunction with local authorities, they must get together more frequently than they do at the moment and, in the same way, the Commission must have the extra opportunity statutorily of coming into consultation with the local authorities at an early date.
This is an important Amendment. We discussed it in Committee, and I thought that we had influenced the Minister. Obviously, we have not yet done so. It is not a complicated addition to the Bill, but it could have far reaching effects. Every move made by a local authority in the countryside in providing facilities for recreation and amenity and every move by the Countryside Commission in the same two spheres, must go hand in hand. While the two bodies will consult on a good many occasions, we want to make certain that they consult.

Earl of Dalkeith: I want to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), because this is a good and necessary Amendment. Perhaps I might refer to a specific case in which it could be used to advantage. In the Pentlands there is a firing range which belongs to the Ministry of Defence. If this Amendment were made, it would be necessary for the local authority to consult the Countryside Commission before granting any form of planning permission for changes to be made on the firing range. That could be a valuable safeguard for the amenities of the City of Edinburgh.
Having said that, there is one point about the Amendment which worries me. It is that if all local authorities are to indulge in a large number of consultations with the Commission, will the Commission be able to cope with the vast volume of work which will be put on its plate without quadrupling its staff?
With that in mind, perhaps I might move a manuscript Amendment to change the words "consult with" in line 3 of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment to "notify". That would meet the point adequately. Providing that the Commission was notified of planning changes, it could make representations to the local authority concerned if it did not like any feature of the proposed changes.
I do not quite know how to set about moving a manuscript Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The noble Earl must not try.

Earl of Dalkeith: Having made that suggestion, perhaps the Minister might like to move the manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I rise to support what seems to be a sensible Amendment. I recall the discussions which the Minister of State and I had when we considered the Countryside (Scotland) Bill. The general spirit which motivated both sides was to give the Countryside Commission the authority to supervise development in the countryside. Both sides were anxious that the Commission should really work.
7.45 p.m.
I imagine that in the majority of cases a planning officer would have the sense to consult with the Commission if any development was to take place in the countryside. I suppose that we have one of the best planning officers in Scotland at present in East Lothian, where a great deal of work is being carried out along the coastline. In those cases, I know that the Commission is being consulted, and a splendid job is being done. But, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) often pointed out to us in the past, personnel, Ministers and officials change. We may not always have a top-notch planning officer in East Lothian. The time may come when we have a planning officer who is not so imbued with the need to consult with the


Commission, and it is very easy with a small amount of thoughtlessness to do great damage of a permanent nature to the countryside.
I hope that the Minister of State will accept the Amendment. I did not serve on the Committee and hear any of the previous arguments, but the Amendment strikes me as being a very good one in that it will go a long way to keeping the country beautiful in the future. It would have the added advantage of giving the Commission what it is important to give it, and that is status as the authority concerned with development in Scotland's countryside.

Mr. MacArthur: I have some sympathy with the point made by my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith). If the local planning authorities were to carry through properly the process of consultation which this Amendment requires of them, the load of work on the Countryside Commission might become burdensome. There might be anxiety in the minds of local planning authorities to carry out the consultation in person, because it would give them a good excuse to come to Perth, where, happily, the Commission has its headquarters.
Perhaps there is something to be said for asking the Minister to consider proposing a manuscript Amendment to the Amendment and, in addition, a consequential Amendment to Schedule 2 setting out the Amendments to other legislation. The word "consult" and a requirement to consult in various directions appears frequently in the Countryside (Scotland) Act, 1967. If there is any justification for using the word "notify" instead of "consult with" in this Amendment, there is an equally strong reason for easing the responsibility of the Commission in the 1967 Act by making similar changes in that Act. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is very good at drafting manuscript Amendments, and, if that presents the Minister with any difficulty, perhaps he and I can retire for a few moments in order to produce some suitable wording.
I have referred to the constant references to consultation in the 1967 Act, and the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am now being quite serious. There is a constant requirement throughout the

Act for the Commission to engage in consultation. For example, in the general duties placed on the Commission in Section 3, it is charged with the duty of keeping under review
… all matters relating to the provision development and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside, the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty and amenity, and the need to secure public access to the countryside …
These are all desirable objectives. It is right that the Countryside Commission should be charged with this duty, but the relevant subsection places the further requirement on it that, in the course of keeping all these important matters under review, it should consult with such local planning authorities and other bodies as have an interest in these matters. There is a requirement on the Commission to consult.
Similarly, if a local planning authority is assessing the need for a country park, a requirement is placed on the Commission in Section 3 to consult with local planning authorities in this regard.
Again, in Section 5 there is a requirement for the Commission to consult with local planning authorities in certain fairly general circumstances. There are other requirements of that kind, but it is always for the Commission to take the initiative to consult with the local planning authority.
By contrast, when we come to certain specific powers of local authorities under Part IV of the 1967 Act, we find that there are certain circumstances in which the local planning authority is charged with the duty to consult with the Commission. It is charged with the same duty that is sought in the Amendment. For example, when a local planning authority is assessing the need for a country park, it is required by Section 48(2) to consult with the Commission from time to time.
In Section 54 of the Act, which deals with the making of byelaws by a local authority, there is a requirement on the local authority to consult with the Commission. This requirement of consultation by the local authority seems to be restricted to specific occasions and circumstances, such as the assessment of the need for a country park or the creation of a new byelaw. There is not the same general requirement on the local planning authority to consult with the Countryside


Commission as there is on the Countryside Commission earlier in the 1967 Act to consult with local planning authorities.
I notice that Clause 1 requires a local planning authority to consult with other neighbouring authorities. Therefore, when a local planning authority is carrying out the duties laid on it, quite properly, in Clause 1 in connection with a major survey and the like, it is required to consult with neighbouring authorities. This makes sense, because if they are engaged, as they are required to be, in a large local survey, it is sensible to consult with the neighbouring local planning authority which is engaged in a similar survey because there will be an overlapping interest. But there is no requirement on the local planning authority in this circumstance to consult with the Countryside Commission. It seems that the consultation requirements of the 1967 Act and the Bill run primarily in one direction. There is an obligation on the Countryside Commission in the 1967 Act to consult with local planning authorities, but only in specific circumstances—the assessment of the need for a country park, the creation of new bye-laws and so on—is there any requirement in the 1967 Act for the local planning authorities to take the initiative and consult with the Commission.
I applaud what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). It makes complete sense for the local planning authority to be required to consult or, if the House feels that that is too involved a word, to notify the Countryside Commission about its progress and intentions under the survey requirement in Clause 1.
We all share a concern and regard for the proper and harmonious development of the countryside. We all want to see access to the countryside improved and enjoyed by more people. If that is to happen, particularly with the encroachments which are constantly being made into the countryside, it is right that local planning authorities, which are often the trigger point of development of this kind, should be required to consult the Commission as a further protection for the townsman and the countryman who have a great interest and affection for what is a shrinking asset in this country.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) for his lengthy but quite proper references to all the preceding legislation. Indeed, it makes my case that there is already in statute a great responsibility imposed on the Countryside Commission to advise the Secretary of State, when requested, and, just as important, to give advice on anything that it thinks appropriate.
Specific reference has been made to the proposal to expand the area used by the Army in the Pentland Hills. The hon. Gentleman will know—it may be that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) has already told him—that this matter has been referred to the Commission.
Administrative arrangements exist within the Department which secure that any matter of real concern to the Commission—even matters of much less importance than those mentioned in the Amendment or in the speeches we have heard—can be brought to its notice. We must always remember that in this relationship between the local planning authority and the Countryside Commission there is another party—the Scottish Office. After all, the relationship between the local planning authority and the Scottish Office is clearly defined in statute and is important.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who led for the Opposition and assisted me greatly in getting the Countryside Bill through Committee, knows that this three-party relationship is very important, because they inter-act on each other. Therefore, we must not forget that in explaining the position. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not forget the position of other bodies concerned with planning. The hon. and learned Member for Pentlands referred to many bodies, some involved in planning, who should be considered here.

Mr. MacArthur: I should like to ask the Minister a brief question about an earlier point. Was the firing range matter referred to the Commission because of a statutory requirement that it should be so referred, or was it referred to the Commission for its advice?

Dr. Mabon: It was raised because we were concerned about it. The hon. and


learned Member for Pentlands raised this one morning in Committee in a very astute way on a subject we were then debating not concerning the Pentland Hills. I took action that morning and we have since referred it to the Commission. It is not necessary to have references in statute to do these things. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or in regulations?"] The House must not forget that the regulations which flow from Acts are oft-times in practice as important in their practical effect as the very Act itself. I cannot remember the exact words used by the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands in the preceding debate, but they are there and they are good words to use. These regulations must not be dismissed as minor matters which do not have much effect. These regulations are important.
It is right and proper that we should look at the question of notification. Though the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) may have meant it in a jocular way, I take the point that notification is important, and it may be that "notify" is a better word than "consult" in the Amendment. I should like to take that point into consideration when making regulations under Clause 13(1). We have to have a more rational system of regulations under Clause 13(1). There are other bodies.
The hon. and learned Member mentioned the Land Commission, and I will not weary the House with a long list of statutory or voluntary bodies which have rights in these matters, but they have some concern in this. The House would not want to give the impression that the Countryside Commission is the only one. That is the effect of the Amendment and, while I accept the argument of speciality, other people have special interests as well. We should not accept the Amendment, but should accept the importance of its meaning when it comes to regulations under Clause 13(1).

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: Is not the hon. Gentleman's example of the Pentlands Firing Range a case in point? There has been no proper consultation between the corporation as planning authority and the Countryside Commission. If we were at the stage of surveys for structure plans

under this legislation, the Amendment would require that consultation, which is the very point which we are trying to make.

Dr. Mabon: But we can do this even more successfully than the Amendment would do, when we have read the Skeffington Report and seen its effect on public participation and how regulations should be made. Clause 13(1) is absolutely crucial and if, out of it, there do not come rational and comprehensive and effective regulations, the Bill will not succeed. We all agree that public participation must be made better. That is why we should not identify specific bodies or ask them to act in specific ways. Regulations should be comprehensive and rational.
I do not want the Amendment to be accepted, because I prefer that we do the matter comprehensively and rationally, covering everybody—not necessarily distinguishing between bodies in Statute but leaving it to regulations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Many of us are disappointed that the Minister has merely repeated his arguments in Committee and has adduced nothing new. He has confirmed our view that the Amendment is necessary. What worries me is that so much in the Bill appears to be left to regulation. In planning matters, many things should be left to regulation, but, on this Bill, the Minister uses that excuse because we should wait either for the Skeffington Report or for the reorganisation of local government. This all makes us realise that perhaps the Bill has been brought forward at the wrong time and that far too much will be left to ministerial discretion by Order, merely because other things have not been done first.
That is a slightly wider argument, but we are concerned that the Minister should continually use this excuse for these reasons. That is one of our main reasons for believing that, where we can tie matters down specifically, this should be done; that is one of the purposes of the Amendment. I agree also with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) about Pent-lands firing range, which the Minister quoted as an example of the Countryside


Commission being consulted. If the consultation had taken place before this had become a real issue—I know something of it—the public concern might never have reached its present height. It is because of this concern that we should make certain of consultation as early as possible.
After all, in subsection (4) an obligation is laid on the planning authority to consult; there is nothing between us on this. In the light of what is happening with the Countryside Commission, we believe that this obligation should be specific about that body. The hon. Gentleman argued that it is wrong to write in this one body, when others have planning functions. But no other bodies have quite the same degree of special planning functions as the Countryside Commission.
I should like to give an example from my own experience. Some years ago, I was concerned with a new South of Scotland Electricity Board power line, with high tension lines and towers, going right across from Wishaw to the South of Edinburgh. I thought that, instead of following the ridges, it should have been camouflaged against the hills. When I put the point of view to a helpful way-leave officer from the Board, he said, with great innocence and an assurance that he would persuade me completely, "It is all right. This has all been vetted by Lady MacGregor, of the Royal Fine Art Commission." I knew perfectly well that Lady MacGregor and the Commission had never seen this line, but had only passed the design of the pylon towers to carry it.
This illustrates how excuses like this about other bodies are used to justify such lines as this across the country. Therefore, I do not give way to the argument that other bodies, like the Royal Fine Art Commission, have such specific planning functions as the Countryside Commission. After all, if we did not believe that the Countryside Commission had special planning functions, we should never have supported its establishment in the first place. It is because of these special functions that the Commission was set up. We should give it a job to do.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a very good case for mentioning the Royal Fine Art Commission in relation to Edinburgh

and in dealing with developments which are restricted, certainly in the countryside?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Amendment deals specifically with the Countryside Commission and we are asking only that the obligation should be to consult on matters relating to the countryside. The passing of the Countryside Act demonstrates the will on both sides to acknowledge the great importance of the countryside; this is why we believe that this obligation should be written in. If we set up these statutory bodies, in Scotland or elsewhere, we should give them a job to do.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, we must give these bodies status, and if we want to attract the right kind of people to serve on them and to serve Scotland in the right way we must make sure that they are given a job to do. One of the real jobs that they can do is in relation to planning functions. If local planning authorities are not obliged to consult them, that will belittle the task which these bodies have to do.
We believe that it is important to write into the Bill this question of consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said—and I do not intend to go over the points that he made—that in view of increasing urbanisation, with growing industrial development, and because of the increase in population, the preservation of the countryside for recreation is becoming more and more important. This is another reason why we believe that this provision should be written into the Bill.
Industrial development on the Clyde estuary is of great importance. In that area the countryside has high value, and the provision of recreational facilities is extremely important. We all support industrial development in that part of Scotland, but it is vital that that development is integrated with other interests such as the countryside and the provision of recreational facilities.
We know that surveys and structure plans are submitted to the Secretary of State, and that he may consult the Countryside Commission about them, but we believe that it will be much quicker—and in this Bill we are trying to speed up


the planning processes—if before the plans and surveys are submitted, as many as possible of the different considerations and consultations are out of the way so that when the Secretary of State receives the plans and the surveys there is a large measure of agreement between the different bodies concerned about the various aspects involved.
We believe that if there is consultation between the local planning authority and the Countryside Commission many of the difficulties which may arise in the early stages will have been resolved and agreement reached before the plans are submitted to the Secretary of State for his

consideration. This is one way in which the planning process can be speeded up.

Because of the importance of the countryside and of the Countryside Commission and the planning functions which we have given it, and also because we want to speed up the planning process in Scotland, we believe that it is necessary to make this Amendment. The Government have not seen fit to accept it, and I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 167.

Division No. 247.]
AYES
[8.14 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
rounder, Rafton


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hill, J. E. B.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Stainton, Keith


Chataway, Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lane, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Waddington, David


Dance, James
Lubbock, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Walters, Dennis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul
McMaster, Stanley
Wiggin, A. W.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wylie, N. R.


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C)






NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Peter
Blackburn, F.
Chapman, Donald


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coe, Denis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Barnes, Michael
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Barnett, Joel
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)




de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Delargy, Hugh
Howie, W.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dewar, Donald
Hoy, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold


Dickens, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Dobson, Ray
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Doig, Peter
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Driberg, Tom
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Park, Trevor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Ellis, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Ennals, David
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Ensor, David
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kerr, Rusell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Probert, Arthur


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Rankin, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ryan, John


Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Freeson, Reginald
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, Joseph


Galpern, Sir Myer
Macdonald, A. H.
Small, William


Gardner, Tony
McGuire, Michael
Snow, Julian


Ginsburg, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Spriggs, Leslie


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wallace, George


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hamling, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wilkins, W. A.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hazell, Bert
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John
Woof, Robert


Horner, John
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Neil McBride.

Clause 3

PUBLICITY IN CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION OF STRUCTURE PLAN

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 14, at beginning insert:
Without prejudice to regulations made under section 13(1) of this Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 16 in Clause 13, page 12, line 23, after 'the', insert:
'powers conferred on him by the'.

Mr. Wylie: This is a short, drafting Amendment which was referred to in a somewhat different form in Committee when it was pointed out that the provisions of Clause 13 had to be married up with the provisions of Clause 3. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised the matter initially.
Clause 3(1) provides that

… the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—
(a) that adequate publicity is given…".
Clause 13(1), on the other hand, provides that
Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions … the Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the form and content of structure and local plans … and … any such regulations may—
(a) provide for the publicity to be given…".
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East wondered in Committee how these two provisions matched up with each other and, later, the Minister of State described the two Clauses as "co-equals." The matter was rather left in the air, and it is now time to decide the best course to take.
As I read the two provisions, it appears that a duty is imposed under Clause 3(1) on the local authority to satisfy itself that the publicity is adequate. However, that is, in Clause 13, without prejudice to any regulations made by virtue


of the powers in Clause 13 relating to publicity. The requirements set out in the regulations will have to be complied with. However, notwithstanding those requirements, the local planning authority will still have to satisfy itself that the publicity is adequate.
My initial feeling was that the two Clauses were reconcilable. It was only when I listened to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that I got worried about the position. The matter would be marginally clearer if the Amendment were incorporated in the Bill because, appearing in Clause 3, it would direct the reader's attention to Clause 13, which in turn refers the reader back to Clause 3. While my hon. Friends and I would not seek to press the Amendment, I trust that the Minister will give it close consideration.

Mr. Willis: My Amendment, No. 16, seeks to do very much the same as Amendment No. 2. I raised this matter in Committee because I was not satisfied that the position was sufficiently clear, particularly about where the discretion lay or whose discretion was being circumscribed. I have tabled my Amendment to Clause 13 rather than to Clause 3, although I suggest that both Amendments would have the same effect.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: I have not studied the matter with precision and I admit to being an amateur in drafting matters. However, I am always willing to learn. In any event, my Amendment seems to conform with the art of the draftsman rather more than does Amendment No. 2. My proposal would clear up the matter simply and clearly and I hope that my hon. Friend will accept it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will recall that the nub of the matter with which we are concerned is the apparent conflict between the Secretary of State's powers of regulation under Clause 13 and the local planning authority's discretion plus the Secretary of State's decision about its performance under Clause 3. We need a clear statement that the Secretary of State's regulations

under Clause 13 do not prejudice his powers under Clause 3, which are powers to decide on the local authority's performance.
8.30 p.m.
Amendment No. 2 adds nothing to what is already in the Bill. It is already the case that local authority actions under Clause 3 could not prejudice the Secretary of State's regulations made under Clause 13. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. On the other hand, Amendment No. 16 would clarify beyond doubt that this apparent conflict is not a real conflict. I therefore suggest that that Amendment be made in due course, but that Amendment No. 2 should not be pursued. I ant very grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out this matter, and to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his agreement that there was some doubt and that it should be looked at further.

Mr. Wylie: I readily accept what the Minister of State has said. The two Clauses can stand then on their own and it is not really necessary to amend them, but doubts were raised. However, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

ALTERATION OF STRUCTURE PLANS

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'as the case may be'.
If I were the Minister concerned I would merely say "Drafting," because that is all this Amendment is. My hon. Friend has accepted one of my Amendments which adds a lot of words to the Bill, and it is only right that as a kind of compensation I should do something to cut out a few words. The words I seek to leave out seem to be quite unnecessary and not to serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Wylie: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has a point here, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. and learned Gentleman is betting very badly: his gambling instincts are all wrong. If


we were to take out these words and apply a very strict legal interpretation to the remaining words it might be argued with not unreasonable strength that local planning authorities were at liberty to submit either the proposals specified by the Secretary of State or other proposals which appeared to them to be expedient I have discussed this matter with the officials and we believe that this doubt could emerge if the words were taken out. If the hon. and learned Gentleman ponders that point for a moment he may wish to review his position.
To my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) I say that I have been generous, and rightly so, in relation to previous Amendments, but I am a little unhappy about accepting this Amendment. I have thought it over again and, on balance, I think that it would be unwise to take out these words. Their retention will make it absolutely clear, as distinct from leaving some doubt, that where the initiative in submitting the proposal to alter the structure plan is taken by the local planning authority, it submits what it thinks is expedient, but where it is taken by the Secretary of State the local planning authority must submit the alterations specified by him. In other words, if we retain these words there is no doubt in either case. To take them out would leave a doubt, and that would be unwise.

Mr. Willis: As I have already said, I am a simple soul, struggling to understand these technicalities. In this case I think it possible that my hon. Friend may be right. This is not a matter for which I would wish to go to the barricades, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

PREPARATION OF LOCAL PLANS

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 37, at beginning insert:
Subject to the provisions of subsection (6) of this section.
The subsection as it stands is not very happily worded. I think the Minister of State recognised that in Committee. This Amendment, which I do not suggest is necessary, could help to get the provisions

of the subsection into better perspective since it seeks to draw attention to the paramount duty in action areas.
Subsection (6) says:
Where an area is indicated as an action area in a structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State, the local planning authority shall (if they have not already done so) as soon as practicable after the approval of the plan prepare a local plan for that area.
That is a positive proposal which to some extent conflicts with the wide discretion which subsection (2) leaves to the local authority. As it stands the general provision is that the authority has only to consider the desirability of preparing a local plan. It would be better to draw attention at the outset to the mandatory decisions in subsection (6) thereby qualifying in one subsection the general provisions.
I do not suggest that the Amendment is necessary, but it could be rather helpful.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I agree that it is not necessary to make this Amendment. I do not dissent from the fact that getting on with the planning of action areas once they are approved in principle is important, but the addition of these words would add nothing to the requirements in the Bill and someone might ask why subsection (6) should be so singled out. There are provisions throughout Clause 6 to which subsection (2) is subject. If we put these words in they would have no additional effect and they are not necessary. I do not dissent from the importance of what is meant by the two subsections taken together.

Mr. Wylie: I certainly do not want to press this Amendment. The subsection requires local authorities to consider the desirability of preparing local plans. They do not have to prepare local plans, but in subsection (6) they are told that if action areas come into the picture they will prepare a local plan for that area. To that extent subsection (2) is particularly qualified by the provisions of subsection (6). I do not press the Amendment and, as the Minister does not want it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 6, line 39, after 'as', insert 'reasonably'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment it might be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 8: In line 42, at end insert:
'affected by the structure plan'.

Mr. Wylie: I do not think these Amendments make sense without Amendment No. 7: In line 39, leave out from 'practicable' to 'prepare' in line 41.
The whole purpose is to make clear that where a structure plan impinges on an area there is a duty to prepare a local plan for at least that part of the area affected by the structure plan. The effect of these Amendments would be to make the subsection read:
Where a structure plan for their district has been approved by the Secretary of State, the local planning authority shall as soon as reasonably practicable prepare a local plan for any part of the district covered by the structure plan.
That is a clear duty.
The whole wording of the subsection is exceedingly complicated. It says that
the local planning authority shall as soon as practical consider, and thereafter keep under review, the desirability of preparing and, if they consider it desirable and they have not already done so, shall prepare a local plan, for any part of the district.
I do not think that it could be said that the wording is satisfactory.
Our complaint in Committee and now is directed more to the substance of the provision than to its wording. If the structure plan affects a local authority's district or part of it, it should be under an obligation to prepare a local plan for it. A local plan would be prepared if the need for it arose. The need would arise if a part of the area was affected by the structure plan. It would be better to face the facts and impose a duty on the local authority to prepare a structure plan in those circumstances.
In Committee the Minister argued that if the structure plan does not affect a part of an area there is no point in ordering a local authority to prepare a structure plan. That was a valid point of criticism on previous Amendments, but it does not arise on these Amendments because the duty is being confined to the situation where the structure plan affects a part of the district. In those special circumstances a clear duty should be imposed on the local authority to prepare a local plan.
This is all the more important in view of the general nature of the structure plan. If local authorities are not to follow up the structure plan provisions with local plans I do not think that the public will benefit from this change, in the system of planning. This is not an important Amendment, but subsection (2) should be changed in a way which makes it clear that the local authority has a duty to prepare a local plan where any part of its district is affected by the structure plan.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I recognise that without Amendment No. 7 it is a little difficult to read Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together. I accept that Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 avoid the position which arose in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged that the argument used in Committee cannot be used now, because it is now proposed that the local plan must be prepared "as soon as practicable" for the full area covered by the structure plan. For reasons of exposition or comprehensiveness, a structure plan may well extend over a considerable area including considerable tracts of country in which no early change is foreseen. Under the provision as proposed to be amended it could be argued that these areas were "affected by the structure plan" and that therefore local plans would have to be prepared.
We are back again to the question of the destruction of all sense of priority. In Committee I argued that the retention of a sense of priority was absolutely essential. The Clause is perfectly rational. It seeks to provide that local plans must be prepared as soon as practicable for action areas and for any other areas specified by the Secretary of State or where the local planning authority considers it desirable. This concentrates the priorities and gives attention to those areas.
In the light of the criticisms which were made, I reconsidered the Clause. Although rude remarks were made about it, its intention is successful and I advise the House not to accept either of the Amendments.

Mr. Wylie: The Minister of State is much more satisfied now with the wording of the Clause than he was in Committee. As hon. Members will see from


c. 182 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he recognised that it was far from satisfactory and expressed a willingness to tighten up the phraseology. But he went on to say that he did not wish to rob the subsection of its meaning. "I cannot do everything at once", he says. He is perhaps being unduly modest. He does quite a lot all at once, as far as I can see.
I do not feel like withdrawing the Amendment. I would rather have it negatived. We cannot let the Clause stand without some kind of protest.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7

PUBLICITY FOR PREPARATION OF LOCAL PLANS

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 13, at end insert:
'and notification thereof made to every ratepayer directly affected thereby'.
This matter was discussed in Committee because one of the most important aspects of planning is how to ensure that those who are to be affected are informed in time of what is happening and, where relevant, have the opportunity of making representations or expressing their views.
The Government have outlined the difficulties, which we recognise, of enabling thousands of persons who might think themeslves affected by certain proposals to get copies of a complicated document which in itself might be expensive. Here we simply suggest that, at the end of the Clause, it should be made clear that notification should be made to every ratepayer directly affected and that this notification can be in a simple form, not requiring an expensive brochure or plan or anything of that kind.
In Committee, the Minister viewed sympathetically a proposal on these lines and we hope that the wording we now suggest will meet those sympathetic noises. One of my hon. Friends then suggested that a postcard or something of that nature would be enough to alert those concerned to what was happening.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us more about his thinking on the matter, even if he is unable to

accept the Amendment. He knows that it will remain a subject of anxiety where-ever these new planning procedures are to be put into effect. There will be anxiety amongst those who feel that they may not hear in time to be able to do anything about it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I still share the view that this is an important matter and that it is right to deal with it in a proper way. In our earlier discussions, there was some exaggerated views of what was being asked and I realise that, with this Amendment, the Opposition have gone a long way to improve on the Amendment moved in Committee which I could not accept. I suggested in Committee that we should look at the Amendment then not only on the wider issue of its being so expensive and ill-defined, but also in the context of the importance of Clause 13 and the regulations to be made under it. I point out again that the report of the Skeffington Committee will guide us in formulating these regulations.
Amendment No. 9 is better phrased than that moved in Committee, but I would point out, in a friendly way, that it is still very difficult to identify the ratepayers directly affected. It could be argued that they would be those living in the area covered by the plan, and that seems simple enough. But it could also mean ratepayers owning property within that area and these are by no means easy to identify.
Ratepayers just outside the area might also be involved. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even living in the shadow of an urban motorway is of some concern to some ratepayers. It could also be argued that a ratepayer directly affected could be a person who, although he did not actually live in the area, was dependent on it for his job and for services and that the proposals might upset that. It is difficult to be sure who would be affected.
May I point out to the hon. and learned Member, for his endorsement, I hope, that if we fail to inform someone who could later substantiate a claim of direct interest, it might be argued that the whole process had been invalidated by the omission of a legitimately affected ratepayer.
I appreciate the purpose of the Amendment and I am not unsympathetic to the


view that we have to get this procedure right, but it would not be proper to make the Amendment, because it is inaccurate and could open the way to a serious defect. It is better to go back to Clause 13 and the Skeffington Committee, which hon. Members like so much and whose report, I hope, will commend itself to them and which will guide the Government in making sensible regulations under Clause 13 to meet the purpose which hon. Members opposite have nobly striven to achieve.

Mr. Wylie: There are times when I wish that we had been discussing the Bill after the publication of this great Skeffington Committee report, for every time we seek to do something, we are told that we have to wait for the Skeffington Report. Again, we have been told about regulations and I think that there is something in the Minister's argument. However, I hope that our repeated attempts to do something on these lines will have impressed on the Government the desirability of doing something.
I recognise the difficulties in all this. However, local authorities never have any difficulty about getting out their rate notices and rarely miss out anyone. I suspect that if they really tried, they could manage this. May I say a word of caution? The Minister should not listen too carefully to what local authorities say about our proposal, because it is just the kind of proposal which they would not encourage, although something on these lines would be desirable.
However the point has been made and I understand that the Government are to consider dealing with this aspect in the regulations to be made under the general empowering provisions of Clause 13, and I am sure that that will meet the object of the Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL PLANS

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 9, line 41, leave out Clause 9.
This Amendment raises a point of principle in the procedures proposed by the Bill. We believe that the Clause leaves a fundamental defect in the procedures for the new kind of plan, the local plan. Under these procedures, a local planning authority is to consider the objections to its own plan and then decide whether the plan should be adopted. This seems wrong and unnecessary, because it will appear that the authority is judge in a case in which it is one of the parties. The objector is one of the parties objecting to the plan produced by the authority.
In Committee, the Minister objected to our saying that the authority was a party, but, because it is the authority's plan, it will be thought to be one of the parties to the matter at issue. The decision on whether to adopt a plan in the face of objections is given to the local authority. That is the main reason why we object to this new procedure and press this Amendment and related ones which have not been called.
The local authorities concerned are likely to consider that the plans produced by their own planning committees, working sincerely for the best interests of the community, are good and sensible. No one can blame them for that. That is why it seems wrong that they should then have the power of final decision. If ever there were a case in which justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done, this is it. I do not suggest that any local authority would behave improperly, but it will have to make a judgment of its own plan against the views of objectors. If, even at this late stage, the Government accepted our view, that would preclude a sense of grievance which will otherwise underlie such cases.
The Government have not argued that such plans being referred to the Secretary of State will constitute an additional administrative burden. If the Minister of State argues that, we should be interested in the details, but I understand that it has not been suggested. The Scottish Office has dealt with such matters in the past with great expedition and more quickly than equivalent procedures are handled in England and Wales. No change would be required for that reason.
It is true that, under subsection (3), local authorities would be obliged to


submit a case to the Secretary of State for a decision, if he called it in, but this would not be much of a safeguard to the citizen, since there is no indication of what kind of cases would be affected, or of the criterion against which he will judge the plans and the objections.
On Amendment No. 1 concerning the Countryside Commission, the Minister of State said that the Scottish Office played an important part in planning matters and that it was often the third party in planning questions. I was glad to hear that. This is precisely our point on this Amendment. Because the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State can act as a third party in planning matters, we think it a mistake to leave it to the local planning authorities to take the final decisions.
I hope that the Minister will repeat the principle which he enunciated earlier and which no doubt he heard me loudly endorse. If he cannot accept this, I admit, radical Amendment entirely, I hope that even at this late stage he will give an assurance that the Government will have second thoughts and will recognise that to leave it to the local authority to decide these matters will arouse anxiety among all those who may have objections to local plans.

9.0 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Although we had a full debate in Committee on this matter, as reported in columns 266 to 275 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the sixth Sitting, it is nevertheless wise that we should debate it again. I agree that we are considering an essential principle of the Bill.
The difference between the Amendment and the Government's position is simple. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) pointed out that under Clause 9 plans shall not take effect unless they are approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I readily accept that this does not meet the hon. Gentleman's case, but it is an exceptional circumstance when in the Secretary of State's view the local plan raises issues concerning important Government policies or matters of national rather than local significance or arouse acute controversy on more than a local scale.
One could go further and recognise that there are plans which may include important schemes of development, sensitive areas, such as town centres, of exceptional architectural or historic value or schemes of unusually technical complexity. The plans might be called in if they seem to run counter to important planning principles or conflict with the structure plan.
These are important exceptions, and, in fairness to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, I concede that they are in the minority. Therefore, since the hon. Gentleman argues by his Amendment that all local plans should go before the Secretary of State, there is an important division between the Government and the Opposition. I do not understand the Opposition's view. Earlier, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) lamented—and it was not an unreasonable lament—that we do not have the Skeffington Committee's report. But we have the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England. We know the proposals for Wales which may well be modified in the light of the Royal Commission's report on local government in England and the report of the Royal Commission on local government in Scotland when it is published, which, I hope, will not be too long.
In these days of local government reform, it must strike hon. Members that the report of the Planning Advisory Group made a valid point when it referred to the importance of local authorities dealing with local plans. Local authorities of the future—I am not giving a Government commitment—are likely to be bigger than present-day planning authorities. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, only the other day, was advocating that we should have regional planning groupings now, so that we can get ahead with regional plans on a more extensive basis. There is a later Amendment on which we may discuss this.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying what I said in Committee, that it is a pity that, although we started on the question of the reform of local government in Scotland nearly six years ago, we are still


awaiting the report of the Royal Commission. If only we had been able to get ahead in those five years we would now know the size and shape of future local authorities in Scotland.

Dr. Mabon: I quite agree that the hon. Gentleman said this in Committee. I was speaking about the report in the Glasgow Herald, which was quoted to me by a Socialist convenor as being in support of the proposition which I was putting forward and which was heavily objected to by the Conservatives present. I am speaking of the Clyde Valley Advisory Committee, which met recently in the City Chambers, Glasgow.
I wish to put a direct question to the hon. Gentleman before he divides the House on this issue. There is no point of reconciliation here. This is a fundamental principle of the Planning Advisory Group Report. It is a fundamental report on the reform of town and country planning, which I do not want to debate tonight because I have done so before. We can only agree to disagree at this stage. His hon. and learned Friend was embarrassed when I asked him this in Committee. It was not a point of worry on his part that he should be embarrassed, because it was put to him suddenly, but very clearly.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is fond of making pledges—he made one last night—will make another pledge, or be prudent and not make a pledge until he thinks the matter fully through. Will the new administration formed by the party opposite, if such be the case ever or in the foreseeable future, repeal these provisions? If the answer is yes, a lot of confusion will be caused among Conservative supporters in the country. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the vote he is insisting upon means that the party opposite will so disturb town planning legislation, if they get a chance, as to do this considerable damage?

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The Minister in dealing with this matter has been inadequate all along the line; he was inadequate in Committee and he has been inadequate tonight. He simply has not explained why the change should be introduced. He burbles about a fundamental principle of the

Planning Advisory Group, but that body was not just considering the Scottish situation, it was primarily considering the English situation. The Minister may shake his head, but he knows as well as I do that the situation in England is utterly different from the situation in Scotland. It is for administrative reasons, because of the vast volume of appeals in England, that the change has been necessary, and this does not apply in Scotland.
There is being introduced the thoroughly obnoxious principle that local authority should be jury and judge in its own case. The Minister is like a parrot; he keeps saying to us, "This means you do not trust the local authority". This is absolute bunkum, if you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for saying so. It is not a question of trusting or not trusting the local authority. It is a question of who should be the court of appeal where there is a difference of opinion between the private individual and the planning authority.
The Minister does not seem to know how ordinary people feel about the matter. The trouble with the local authority is that precisely because it is local it gets involved in things. It cannot stand back. We need some body, some organisation, which can stand back and which is not involved in the way that a local authority inevitably gets involved.
This is a thoroughly bad feature of the Bill. The Minister has not got down to the basic principle of justifying it. It is not just that I do not understand him or do not agree with him. That happens often enough. The trouble is that he has not bothered to get down to the basic principles. He has never explained why this should be done.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: If the hon. Member is good enough to look up the relevant passage he will see on page 38 the references to 6.17, 6.18 and 6.19, as well as subsequent matters. Surely the argument could not be clearer that the Government should stand by a policy which it has chosen.

Mr. Galbraith: There are two different principles in collision here. There is the principle in the Report and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the reference—which is to some extent a valid principle, and there is the principle that I have enunciated that one should


not be judged in one's own case. These are two contradictory principles. The House ought to decide which is the more important. I agree that in England, because of the volume of objections, what is enunciated in the Report must prevail. But I believe that the contrary principle that one should not be judge in one's own cause should apply in Scotland.
The Minister has not produced one single valid practical reason why that principle should not apply. When there may be 200 objections in Scotland it is ridiculous to say that the principle which applies to England should apply to Scotland. It has been stated in the Press and is clear to everybody that this is an instance in which the Scottish legislation follows unnecessarily the English legislation. Indeed, the Secretary of State, far from being a lion rampant and roaring in the Committee, has been merely a meek sheep—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Dormant.

Mr. Galbraith: Dormant or regard-ant. He certainly has not come up with the right decision.
The Minister must recognise the clash of principle. Private individuals will have no confidence when their appeal is turned down. They may not like it if they do not get their way, but they will feel that the matter has been looked at by a person, the Secretary of State, who is used to acting in a quasi-judicial capacity remote from the immediate issue, and they will accept that. But they will have no confidence at all if the Minister does not accept this Amendment.
It is a great pity that the Bill has been handled in this way. It was raced through far too quickly in the House of Lords where, in spite of Committee and Report stages and a Third Reading, a fundamental error remained. If the Bill were now at the stage of going to the other place the Minister would have the opportunity for second thoughts. The Minister of State should now have beside him the Secretary of State to listen to the arguments which we have put forward this evening to make a change in order to ensure that independence of judgment is given priority over the administrative reasons which apply in England. I hope that he will consider the matter again.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I rise to support what is clearly an Amendment which involves a highly important issue of principle.
As the Minister of State is aware, he and I have differing views about the joys and virtues of planning. I accept that planning must be involved in the activities of a local authority. But, unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe that we must go out of our way to tilt the balance of protection in favour of the rights of the individual citizen, which may be at risk in the activities of the planners. Therefore, in the interests of the defence of the rights of the individual citizen, there is an overriding case for accepting the Amendment and deleting the Clause.
In his endearing way, the Minister of State suggested that if we deleted the Clause we would show a lack of confidence in the local authorities. That is nonsense. It has nothing to do with confidence, or lack of it, in local authorities. It has to do with the far more fundamental principle of the rights of the individual versus the impositions of the community. In recent years, we have gone too far in riding roughshod over the rights of the individual on behalf of the community, and it is high time that we took some step, however modest, to correct the balance. The Amendment would have the effect of doing that.
The Minister of State also said that the object of the Clause was to recognise that local authorities should be the bodies to deal with local plans. However, if the Clause were deleted it would not prevent local authorities dealing with local plans, but it would ensure that there was an effective court of appeal which was at arm's length from where the decisions are taken.
In our dealings with constituents, we must all be aware of occasions when local authorities, perhaps acting in good faith, have shown themselves to be peculiarly insensitive to the rights and interests of their individual ratepayers. Very often, damage is done before effective pressure can be brought to bear on the local authority, unless there is a judicial procedure of appeal. If there is an appeal procedure under the Secretary of State there is no danger. But it is not good


enough to say that the citizen who feels aggrieved can complain to the local authority when the local plan is being formulated and that he can team up with friends and neighbours to bring pressure to bear on the authority. As we have all experienced, sometimes the time for doing it has slipped by before the individual is aware of it.
It is a fundamental issue that we should preserve the right of appeal of the individual citizen to a body outwith and above his own local authority.
The Minister of State ought to think again about the argument that to delete the Clause would betray a lack of confidence in the local planning authority. This is a very feeble argument and we should hear no more of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) pointed out that the only reason we have apparently been given at any stage for the inclusion of the Clause is that it was felt necessary to do it in the English Bill.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Yes. I feel that in recent months and years we have had too much from this Government of legislation justified on the ground that the English have done it and therefore we must do it, too. It is not good enough as an explanation. What is the purpose of separate Scottish legislation if we have to follow slavishly in the footsteps of the English on every occasion?
Perhaps I may improve on a word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead. He said that the Secretary of State had become a sheep regardant. I do not think that he is particularly regard-ant of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) suggested "dormant". I would say "passant" as well, which I think is another term of heraldry which seems to be peculiarly apt in this instance.
We should say to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of State: "Wake up. Get off your trotters or your backside, or whatever it is, and acknowledge that this is an occasion when we should step aside from the English and have legislation suitable for circumstances in Scotland

which effectively, for once, protects the rights of the individual in the burghs and the country areas of Scotland."

Mr. James Davidson: I intervene briefly on this Amendment. Having been through all the Amendments tabled to the Bill I have had no difficulty in deciding how to vote on any, except this one. This rather troubles me. I have listened to the argument with great interest. If the whole Clause is deleted it seems to me that it will make a nonsense of the Bill as a whole. This concerns me because, at this late stage, as it is a Lords Bill and, therefore, there will be no chance to re-amend it in another place, it puts us in a difficult position.
I rise to ask for clarification on one point. I am very much in favour of the arguments that have been put forward in favour of the rights of the individual. These sort of arguments sway me. I am not entirely convinced that the way that the arguments have been put, although they convinced me in a sense, are fair on this Amendment.
It appears that in subsection (3) there is an opportunity, if objections have been made and the local planning authority has not accepted them, for the aggrieved party to write to the Secretary of State or get on to the Secretary of State through his Member of Parliament. But is there sufficient time for him to do so and to say, "The objections that I have made have been steam-rollered by the local planning authority. I am dissatisfied because I feel that I have been done an injustice. Will you please operate under this subsection and look at my objections again and, if necessary, direct the local planning authority to pay heed to them and to make the necessary alterations? "Does this opportunity exist?
It may not be a matter of much consequence to the Minister whether the Liberals vote for or against the Amendment, but this will depend on his answer, because I had intended to support the Government.
I have listened to the arguments, and I admit to having been swayed by them, particularly by the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) who, I thought, put the case very strongly, and it is up to the Minister to sway me the other way if he wishes


to do so. In particular, will the Minister make clear that the opportunity will still exist for the objector to make his objections known to the Secretary of State?

Mr. George Lawson: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) is suspending judgment, but I should have though that more than any other Member present he would have supported what the Government were trying to do. There has been so much clamour for increased devolution. I have questioned it at times, but everyone seems to take it for granted that there is this demand for more and more local control of local affairs.
One of the features of the modern State is over-centralisation. We must get away from that and develop a position in which local people have a bigger voice and more control over what is happening in their own localities. We have to get to the position in which decisions which affect people locally can be taken locally, andr can be taken speedily. I thought that this, above all, was a feature of what the Liberal Party stood for.
The Clause which the Amendment seeks to eliminate endeavours to give greater control to local people over their own local affairs.

Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Liberals have made great play of devolution and giving more power to people locally. The point in dispute is whether the power of the local authority might overrule the rights or objections of an individual. This is the critical point, and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to try to slur it over. I should like to hear the Minister's answer to my question.

Mr. Lawson: I am not trying to slur it over, but if we think in terms of a central Government we must realise that there must be some kind of authority which has power to take decisions which quite often an individual does not like. For a long time we have been building up protections. If Mr. Speaker permitted me to do so I could tell the House how many more protections the individual has in this modern State than he used to have, how much more sensitive the modern State is of the rights of the

individual, but I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) would want to come back again and we would have to spend a long time on it.
If we live in an organised community, somewhere, in some form or other, there has to be a means of taking decisions, and in such circumstances the individual may feel aggrieved. If we argue that there must be greater power to take decisions localy—more devolution; because surely that is what all this means—we must think in terms of giving the authority in the locality—and I assume that it is democratically elected, sensitive authority and can be displaced if it does not act in a way which is generally approved—power to act, or there is no devolution.

Mr. Galbraith: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about devolution, but I think that he is missing the point. It is not a question of devolution. We all agree with that. The point at issue here is that when there is a difference of opinion between the individual and a local authority surely the appeal should not be backed to one of the parties, but should be to an independent person, who in this instance happens to be the Secretary of State? It is not because he is the Secretary of State, not because he is a central body, but because he is remote and independent that we wish to retain the right of appeal to him.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: If hon. Gentlemen opposite want more devolution, they must recognise that some local authority must take a decision. What appeal is there from local authority housing decisions? We know of the heartburning in selection for houses, yet local authorities decide these matters. There are safeguards. This is not being imposed out of the blue.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: rose—

Mr. Lawson: When I start speaking, I seem to provoke hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have been sitting here patiently and dumbly all night.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point and should be flattered. It is not so much a question of a reference to the Secretary of State as of having some independent third party. If some independent tribunal were set up for the purpose, we should be


happy. It is the Secretary of State at the moment, and we consider that that is the most convenient way of doing it. No one is obliged to submit a housing application. In this case, someone who has made no application may think that he will be damaged by something planned by the local authority. That is a different matter entirely.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to the Amendment which I did not select.

Mr. Lawson: The Minister of State is quite right when he keeps telling me to keep my seat because he does not want me to butt in. But I do not accept the arguments of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). I am as concerned as anyone with the protection of individuals from arbitrary authority, but we must be consistent. If there is decentralisation, the local authority must become the final judge, with precautions. If we provided that someone else would judge whether the local authority was right or wrong, it would not be the authority in this respect.

Mr. Willis: But an authority might make a decision which its members had discussed, on something highly emotive, like the ring road in Edinburgh. They might take a public position and write to the Press and argue the matter in public. If an inquiry turned down the plan, it would go back to these same people for a decision on whether they would accept it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. We are on Report.

Mr. Lawson: I take the point of my right hon. Friend.
The Minister of State will reply adequately. He is dealing with something much more extensive and which has been changed. I am talking of local plans which are part of a strategic plan approved by the Secretary of State. We have been concerned about notification, and hon. Gentlemen have tried to insist that every individual be given an individual notice. But there are many precautions to ensure that everyone concerned is informed of what is happening and that due time is allowed before steps

are taken. Under subsections (2) and (3), people can raise matters with the Secretary of State.
If the Secretary of State has any doubt about what a local authority proposes to do, he can intervene. It is no good talking about devolution without recognising the implications. We are discussing one such implication. In the type of society in which we live and which is moving in the direction of devolution, the proposals in the Bill are reasonable, bearing in mind that this part of the Bill follows directly from the consideration given to the matter by an eminent body of people who made recommendations with lucidity.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking the whole issue too far in basing their argument on a possible abuse of the individual. The customary argument in the past was about the abuse of the weak, poor individual who could not afford to hire lawyers to defend him and who did not have friends in high places. He was regularly abused by those in authority. That position has not completely disappeared, but the individual is today less vulnerable.
If things are to be done with reasonable speed, the Clause is necessary. Indeed, one reason for the Bill is to speed up the process of planning decision-making.

Mr. Galbraith: How will the Clause speed it up?

Mr. Lawson: In a sense, the local authority will become the judge.

Mr. Galbraith: And the jury.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Report stage is rather more formal than Committee stage.

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling hon. Gentlemen opposite to order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had better be careful lest I call him also to order.

Mr. Lawson: I have said enough to make the position clear. I am sure that the Minister of State will go further in making it clear. I hope, therefore, that none of my hon. Friends will speak at this point and waste further time.

Mr. James Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that I will not waste the time of the House. I rise simply to make my position clear.
On the basis of my experience of these matters, I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite. One might say that if a local authority takes a decision and goes through the usual channels, with that decision being returned to the local authority, the authority might as well deal with the matter completely expeditiously by not giving the appellant the opportunity of an inquiry. One could say that the local authority should be in a position to deal with any matter immediately, with no further steps being open to the individual.
We should not forget that the members of local authorities are able to put forward their cases with as much strength as hon. Members of Parliament. An authority may take a decision which is then returned to it by the reporter. It can then consider the matter further, thereby having two bites at the cherry. A good council member, with the power of oratory, can persuade a local authority that a different decision should have been taken in the first place.
Unless the Minister of State can provide me with a better explanation than I have yet heard, I will not be able to support the Government in this matter.

Mr. Wylie: The Government are making a radical change in planning procedure in Scotland by this Clause, and it is a change which is wholly and completely contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is one which the Government have not attempted to justify, at least to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends or myself.
The present system in Scotland works perfectly well. There is nothing wrong with it. It is governed by Section 3(4) of the 1947 Act, which gives the Secretary of State the power and authority to decide the development plans which have to be submitted to him. There is nothing wrong with that system. It works perfectly well. There have not been the pressures in Scotland that have resulted in abnormal delays—pressures of the kind that have brought about the change in policy recommended for England and Wales by the Planning Advisory Group.
That is the real reason behind the Government's attitude. It is all very well to quote the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Group, but paragraph 1.29 of the Report makes perfectly clear what the problem is in England. In this respect, this is an English Report, and it is not really concerned with Scotland. Scotland forms only an appendix. Paragraph 1.29 reads:
Finally, the attempt to process all these detailed plans through centralised procedure, including provision for objections (of which there may be hundreds or even thousands on a single plan) and public local inquiry, has inevitably led to very serious delays which tend to undermine public confidence in the system.
The group then quotes delays in England and Wales of two and three years, and sometimes considerably longer, but paragraph 1.32 states:
We believe that the situation calls for a radical reappraisal of the form and function of development plans"—
and this is the important bit—
and a redistribution of responsibility as between central and local government.
The system has broken down in England and Wales: it has not broken down in Scotland. It is disgraceful that we should be seeking to import a radical change of this nature embodying provisions contrary to the principles of natural justice without sound and solid reasons to justify it.
What reporter of any standing or self-respect will take on an inquiry? What person will hold an inquiry, and make recommendations—if these persons are to make recommendations? There is nothing in the Bill to say so. We do not know whether the person makes a report, or to whom he makes it. Apparently, he just holds an inquiry. But, if he is to make recommendations what sort of man will hold that kind of inquiry and make recommendations in the knowledge that one of the parties to the dispute will in any case decide the matter? It is utter and absolute nonsense.
It is even proposed in Clause 8(1)—if I may digress for just a moment, because it is relevant to this issue—that in some cases, as may be prescribed by regulations, the authorities themselves can appoint the person who is to hold the inquiry. How can one possibly achieve that understanding or co-operation between the public on the one hand and


the planning authorities on the other when this kind of procedure is introduced?
I do not want to take up any more time on this issue. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) that the time has passed to put this right. We cannot put it right by this Amendment. There were other Amendments which, because of our procedure, could not be selected. The matter was fully argued elsewhere. There was a way of putting this right, but that way was rejected by the Committee, and we are now to pay for it. That being so, I shall advise my hon. Friends to press the issue to a Division, because a major matter of principle is involved. It is disgraceful that these proposals are being forced on the people of Scotland.

9.45 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: With permission, I speak again to respond to the question which was put specifically by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). I confirm that in the terms in which he asked the question the answer is, Yes.
The excellent speeches made tonight by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands were made in complete ignorance of the Planning Advisory Group's Report. As for that group being an English body, the hon. and learned Member should look at the membership. There were four Scotsmen chosen by the two Ministers who established the group in 1963. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), as the Ministers responsible, set up the group and four members of the group are distinguished members in Scottish life today. Anyone reading the Report would realise that it is essentially a British Report.
It is a piece of propaganda by hon. Members opposite to pretend that it is an English Report. We have adapted from the Report some fine parts of the Bill which are not in dispute. That there is a misunderstanding—that is all I can say politely—is no reason to abuse people in this way. The reference in the appendix is to the assessment of the actual planning position in Scotland, and it ends:

Because of their smallness and relatively limited resources, they have difficulties in recruitment of staff. The need to economise in planning effort is, therefore, at least as great in Scotland as in England and Wales.
That is why many of these recommendations are drawn as they are and why we are trying to recruit more staff.
I have commented about individuals who wish to appeal for local plans to be taken by the Secretary of State. Hon. Members opposite want all local plans to go to the Secretary of State, but I say that some can go to the Secretary of State in the circumstances I have outlined. The Report says:
Over and above this the individual retains the right of appeal to the Minister if his planning application is refused, and the right of objection to the Minister against a proposal to acquire his property compulsorily.
Those two principles are not in any way affected, although one would imagine from the debate that they are being infringed.
As to the reference to the position in Edinburgh, does anyone believe that Edinburgh would be regarded as producing only a local plan? It is the capital of Scotland and our second largest city. There would be a structure plan which would go directly to the Secretary of State. There is a misunderstanding and I insist that if hon. Members look at this matter closely they will see that an essential principle of the Bill is delegation and devolution as an intrinsic part of this process and it ought to be kept.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he allow me to interrupt? He quoted from the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought the hon. Gentleman had sat down.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman quoted from the Report the comment that the authorities in Scotland were smaller and had a more restrictive number of officials and therefore we have to reduce the strain on their planning, but this is an argument for retaining the appeal procedure because of the restrictive nature of the planning staff.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a second speech from an hon. Member on Report disguised as an intervention.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Minister of State put a direct question to me about


whether we would repeal the decision if this is passed. Clearly he missed the point. We are trying to change the planning legislation of Scotland. We have all agreed that things need to be brought up to date, but when we are changing legislation we want to get it right. We do not want to have to come back and make changes in two or three years' time.
I agree that those who have to operate this planning legislation mainly planning authorities, should not be unsettled by the prospect of chopping and changing. We want them to have planning procedures which they know will last for some years and with which everyone may become familiar. Therefore, I certainly would not make a statement of this point. When we return to office we shall see what has happened and how the system is operating. We very much hope that we shall not have to make immediate changes on some of these points but if they are proved to be defective we may have to make changes. Our concern now is to get these points right while this legislation is going through in the hope that we shall not need to have further planning legislation for some years and that those who have to work with

these new planning procedures can settle down with them and get used to them. Our concern is to get these points right.

Appendix A of the Report of the Advisory Group states that the weight of material put forward by Scottish local authorities is relatively less than that or their English equivalents. This confirms our contention. The passage which the Minister quoted about the work which falls upon Scottish local planning authorities and their difficulties in having enough staff, a position which is in any case likely to be changed within the next five or six years, if anything supports our case, because our suggestion would mean less work for the local planning authorities and a little more for the Secretary of State.

The Minister appeared to have heard third hand of something which I am supposed to have said in a speech in Glasgow. I assure him that I was only saying what I had said in Committee and what he was fully familiar with.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 176.

Division No. 248.]
AYES
[9.53 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Errington, Sir Eric
MacArthur, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Awdry, Daniel
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Blaker, Peter
Gresham Cooks, R.
Murton, Oscar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Brewis, John
Harris, Frederic (Creydon, N. W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bryan, Paul
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pardoe, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip




Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chataway, Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pounder, Rafton


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Francis


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crouch, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Royle, Anthony


Daikelth, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Stainton, Keith


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stodart, Anthony




Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walters, Dennis
Wylie, N. R.


Summers, Sir Spencer
Ward, Dame Irene
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wiggin, A. W.



Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Waddington, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Font, Ben
Manon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Anderson, Donald
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Archer, Peter
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gardner, Tony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, John


Barnes, Michael
Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Neal, Harold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)



Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Albert E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Horner, John
Oswald, Thomas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owel, Will (Morpeth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Park, Trevor


Cant, R. B.
Howie, W.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)



Janner, Sir Barnett
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rankin, John


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ryan, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Sheldon, Robert


Delargy, Hugh
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dewar, Donald
Keiley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Russell (Feitham)



Dickens, James
Lawson, George
Small, William


Dobson, Ray
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Driberg, Tom
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Loughlin, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Varley, Eric G.


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Wainwrignt, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Wallace, George


Ellis, John
McCann, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


English, Michael
MacDermot, Niall
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ensor, David
McGuire, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackintosh, John P.



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Dr. M. S. Miller.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That proceedings on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be

entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ross.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 13

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO STRUCTURE AND LOCAL PLANS

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 12, line 23, after 'the' insert:
powers conferred on him by the".—[Mr. Willis.]

Clause 18

GRANT OF CERTIFICATE BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON REFERRED APPLICATION OR APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 20, line 44, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 34, in

page 119, line 7, after '16', insert '(1) (a), (f) or (g)'.

Dr. Mabon: Hon. Members will remember that in Committee I promised that I would look at subsection (5) once again. Of course, it is otiose and I suggest that we delete it.
I also promised to look at Schedule 8. I agree that the reference there in paragraph 37 (b) to the whole of Clause 16 is too wide and, accordingly, I suggest that we should restrict that application to subsection (1) (a), (f) and (g) of Clause 16.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We were glad to note that the Secretary of State had added his name to our Amendment and therefore agreed with what we had proposed in Committee. Of course, the Amendment is acceptable to us.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

POWER TO STOP FURTHER DEVELOPMENT PENDING PROCEEDINGS ON ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 22, line 3, leave out '15(4)' and insert '15(5)'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 21

DETERMINATION OF PLANNING AND SIMILAR APPEALS BY PERSONS APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 23, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 21, in page 24, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Campbell: We now reach Part III of the Bill. This is the part in which the Government seek to enact legislation now which at some future time would completely alter the system of appeals in Scotland. It would be changed to a system similar to, if not exactly the same as, that in England and Wales. A corps of inspectors would come into existence in Scotland and would investigate appeals and be able to take certain decisions. The Government originally agreed that this part of the Bill should be left in suspense. In Committee, they also added a provision whereby it could be brought in at some future date only after an Order had been discussed in the House, and that was an improvement.
Nevertheless, we do not see why it is necessary to enact these Clauses. The present appeals system in Scotland can cope with all the likely appeals and a new corps of inspectors is not necessary. The Government appeared to agree that the number of appeals in recent years did not justify the change and based their case on the assumption of a great increase in future. In the three years from 1965 to 1967—the Government made these figures available but could not tell us the figure for 1968, although perhaps

they can tonight—both the number of appeals and the number of resultant inquiries have diminished. Therefore, the present trend does not justify the proposed change.
The Minister justified this change by suggesting that there would be a great increase in industrial expansion, which would give rise to a large number of appeals, compared with the present numbers. Although industrial activity has been described as stagnant in Scotland, the Government would not suggest that it has been diminishing, yet the number of appeals has diminished. The Amendments propose that the new procedure should at least not apply to appeals under Section 14 of the 1947 Act. This is an important category of planning decisions, applications for planning permission and approvals under development orders. We hope that the Government will at least exempt this category.
We should have preferred the Clause and all Part III to disappear completely. We do not think that this legislation is necessary: there is no prospect of it ever being needed. At least the Secretary of State should remove this area from the new procedure. This would bring in the right of appeal to the Secretary of State as a third party, as we discussed on previous Amendments. It is a question not of centralisation but of the Secretary of State acting as a third party, an independent person taking the final decision.
If the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is going to pursue his arguments about devolution and centralisation, I will make it clear again that the Secretary of State does this at present as a third party. We would not mind if it were an independent tribunal. We would still hope that that procedure would continue and that there would be no necessity for a completely new system, as provided for in this part of the Bill, with a corps of inspectors.
We recognise that this has been necessary in England and Wales, where there are thousands of cases a year, but, in each of the three years I mentioned, the number of cases in Scotland was between 300 and 400 and a number of inquiries between 100 and 200. These have been, and can be in future, dealt with adequately by the Scottish system of appeal


to the Secretary of State, with a reporter being appointed to look into cases when necessary.
I hope that even at this late stage the Government will consider this point. They made a move when the Bill was considered in another place. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, indicated that the Government would not bring in this proposal and it was postponed indefinitely. Later, in Committee, the Minister introduced the provision for the affirmative Resolution, which was an improvement; it gives this House a chance to consider the matter again. I hope that the Government will go further and will say that they will either exempt the important planning decisions covered by our Amendments or will never bring in this part of the Bill. That would be best for Scotland.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: What body or local authority in Scotland has asked for this change? I have never had an answer to this question. If a system is working adequately and is supported by the public, the onus is on the Government to show the necessity for a change. For that reason, I support the Amendment. The Minister should give the Scottish nation a better reason than he has done for the introduction of this change. Is it not a very bad principle to put in a Bill a provision which may be operated in future, if not at present? We should not legislate in that way.

Sir Myer Galpern: I intervene for the first time in the debates on the Bill. I was not a member of the Committee.
This proposal disturbs me very much. There may be very good reasons why the system, which is well established, accepted and respected, should not be retained, even though it is not proposed to abolish it in the immediate future. Two cases come to my mind which I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider and to say how they would be dealt with if this proposal were implemented.
It was reported in the Press the other day that a company in Lanarkshire had successfully applied for planning permission for some housing development. It was announced that at least two other

applicants had made similar applications, but that they had been turned down. I wonder why the two earlier applications were refused and the third was granted. There was an outburst by the people who were refused permission. In cases like this an inquiry is essential, with a reporter looking into the circumstances, so that it may be ascertained what led the planning committee to change its mind in a relatively short time.
I can give several instances of what has happened in Glasgow in the search for licensed premises. Development applications have been made by individuals A and B and turned down, but, lo and behold, individual C makes an application and it is granted. These are aspects of local government work that create disturbance in the minds of the electorate, but they are happy and satisfied that there exists this method of inquiry and reporting to the Secretary of State.
10.15 p.m.
Glasgow Corporation, the largest planning authority in Scotland, does not wish this change. The corporation has been urging the members of Parliament for Glasgow to resist the proposal, and the opinion of bodies such as Glasgow Corporation should be considered.
No sufficient reason is being adduced for the change; it is change for the sake of change. Many proposals which have been either used or not used in the past have done no harm. Why should there be lengthy debates for the sake of tidying things up? If they do no harm, the provisions should be left as they are. It may be that there will one day be a great necessity to invoke them.
I accept the argument that we are being dragged by the coat tail of English legislation. As has been shown by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) that we in Scotland are not faced with the problem that confronts England, and I do not anticipate, even with the greatest possible developments that we all wish to see in Scotland, that the numbers of appeals will seriously increase. But there is this inbuilt safeguard which the citizens of Glasgow wish to retain, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give further thought to the matter.

Mr. Galbraith: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). He has a unique experience of Glasgow and of the way in which local government works. Just to show that I have not made up out of my head what I am saying, I will read an extract from what Glasgow Corporation has to say about these proposals:
This is a clear case of blanket application to Scotland of provisions designed to remedy chaotic conditions in England, where the number of appeals (around 10,000 per year) compares with Scotland's approximate 200. The number of appeals might well increase"—
That is what the Minister has been saying—
… but there is no indication that it will do so to such an extent as to justify the proposed changes.
It is accepted that, under these proposals, a decision is likely to be made at an earlier date but"—
this is the important point—
… the Corporation would still prefer the Secretary of State to be the final arbiter.
The Corporation does not say why, but I strongly suspect it is as the hon. Member for Shettleston said, that, unless the Secretary of State is the final arbiter, there will be no feeling of confidence that justice is being done, and I hope even at this late stage that the Government will think again.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In fairness to the Government's position, it should be recognised that we have put down the Amendment which is now part of the Bill, and which is not involved on the Report stage, which brings into action Part III only on an affirmative Resolution. I have readily admitted that in present circumstances there is no need for Part III, and if my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen are right that the circumstances will never change and the figures will remain as they are, Part III could never be justified on an affirmative Resolution by any Minister standing at this Box.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) said in the last debate that he could not always judge the circumstances in which he might answer a direct question about the introduction of a repeal in relation to something else. He wants to know the circumstances obtaining at the time,

and that is quite fair. But it is only prudent to take into account that those who say that such a thing will not happen may be wrong. The Minister may be obliged to bring forward an affirmative Resolution at a particular moment to deal with a situation which has changed beyond his belief and understanding.
If it could be argued that in the present circumstances in England this system is a bad one and if I were convinced of that, I would readily admit that we should amend Part III. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was skilful in his argument to point out that he was not objecting to the usefulness of Part III in the situation in which it was applied in England. That is exactly the position of the Secretary of State. We do not want to apply the provision unless we have a similar situation as that which obtains in England.
It would be foolish for any hon. Member to assert that there will definitely be such a situation in Scotland, just as it would be foolish to assert that such a situation will never exist in Scotland. Therefore, it is far better to have the power in reserve. One cannot introduce major pieces of planning legislation every Session. One must look at the longer term and the matter of legislative time, which is precious.
To turn to the Amendment itself, if we are to have an affirmative Resolution the hon. Member really is saying, "Let us knock out one bit of its application". But he chooses the very provision which is the heart of Part III. I would not describe it as a wrecking Amendment, but it would mean that we should be applying the affirmative Resolution to a smaller part of Part III. I feel that this would be a mistake. Therefore, although I appreciate the principle behind the hon. Member's argument, the Amendment is only a vehicle to that end. It is not in itself a sound Amendment. Accordingly, I ask the House to reject it.

Earl of Dalkeith: We have already had this evening one example of the extraordinary way in which the Government appear to be legislating by pushing through an Amendment which was incomplete and imperfect, with the necessity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That debate is now over.

Earl of Dalkeith: I had finished that part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
We have seen an even more extraordinary example in that the Government have produced great wads of legislation which they admit may never be necessary. It is most odd at a time when the Government are complaining, indeed, when we are all complaining, about lack of time in which to produce all the legislation needed.
The Government from time to time boast about how generous they are with their legislation. In this case, the Government are being almost too generous. It is sad to reflect that at a time when so many things need to be done they should take up the time of Parliament, the time of the Scottish Committee, and of the other place, with a matter which they admit may never be needed. This is a case in which the Government have embarked upon something which has been copied straight from the English Bill so that they should not lose face.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The noble Lord must come to the Amendment. We are not discussing Part III. He must link what he is saying with the Amendments which seek to delete paragraph (a).

Earl of Dalkeith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Paragraph (a) is, as the Minister of State has said, a salient part of Part III. Therefore, it is a good example of how a great deal of time could have been saved. I illustrate the point to suggest that the Government might try to avoid making this sort of mistake again by embarking on something which it feels it must pursue for fear of losing face. I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment. In Committee, we managed to edge him a certain way in the right direction, and we were encouraged by that. We thought that we might make him teeter a little further towards the edge. I am sorry that he will not take the full step. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of State is beside him encouraging him not to accept the Amendment.
The Minister of State has based his arguments completely on certain notional

circumstances which might arise in the future, and he admits that freely. Looking at the White Paper on town and country planning (Command 3333), all the emphasis of the part which is concerned with planning appeals relates to the situation in England and Wales, and this Clause originally was intended to meet the situation in England and Wales where the problem is one of quite different proportions compared with that north of the border. We are trying to come in on the coat tails of England and Wales when we do not need to.
If I could be persuaded by the Minister that we might come to a situation in Scotland such as there was in England and Wales, I see that a different argument would arise. But we cannot see that happening in the near future, and we do not see why we should have to legislate for a notional situation in the future when the Minister of State can see no prospect of it arising. Of course, we do not want to have to bring in extra legislation in two or three years, but does the Minister think that we shall reach a situation similar to that in England and Wales within the next two or three years?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the situation is ever reached, it is much more likely to be a longer way ahead, by which time it is almost certain that the House will be considering new planning legislation.

Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between England and Wales and Scotland in this respect is the comparative stagnation which has confronted Scotland for many years? Does not he welcome the industrial development which this will give rise to? Surely he does not want to see the process of stagnation continue in a way that was characteristic of the period during which his right hon. and hon. Friends were in office.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman refers to the loss of jobs and stagnation in Scotland, but I would not attribute it to present planning procedures. It is the fault of the present Government. However, I will not go further on that point—

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is far enough for both hon. Members.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I got the point over, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for giving me the opportunity.
I come back to the question of numbers. In England and Wales, we talk of appeals by the thousand and, sometimes, tens of thousands. In Scotland, we are discussing a matter of 300 or so appeals a year, and, even of those, quite a number are withdrawn and never require determination.
I do not expect the Minister to answer this, but does he honestly see the number of appeals increasing substantially in the next three, four or even five years?
Taking the figures over the last three years, in 1965 there were 383, in 1966 the number dropped to 302, and in 1967 there were 341. There is no trend there in an upward direction. What circumstances does the Minister of State see arising which will lead to the astronomical increase which will be necessary before we reach the stage of the numbers of appeals in England and Wales? The hon. Gentleman has said nothing to justify to the House that that will happen. Nothing that he said convinced me that it will happen. If it will not happen, why must we have this Clause in this part of the Bill?
I should like to put this in one more constructive sense still. One of the purposes of the Bill is to get participation in planning. If we achieve participation in planning, which all of us want in the Bill, it should lead to a decrease in the number of appeals, not an increase. Therefore, if the Bill is to be a success, we ought not to see the number of appeals increasing.

On these two grounds, the Minister has completely failed to justify under what circumstances in future we are likely to reach a situation in Scotland which made this appeal procedure necessary for England and Wales.

10.30 p.m.

Sir M. Galpern: Even if the figures were to rise substantially in future, would the hon. Gentleman still be in favour of retaining the present system of appeals?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree that we have a system which is tried, which has worked, which has the confidence of people in Scotland and which, as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), has the confidence of the planners and the planned.
In Committee the Minister of State said that he had had no representations from local authorities in Scotland wanting it. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) that when we have a system which is thoroughly satisfactory, why change it.
Finally, if the participation that we get in planning is a success, instead of increasing, we must all hope that the number of appeals will come down. If that happens, where is the justification for having the appeal procedure that the Government have put into the Clause?
I have no hesitation in asking my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 191.

Division No. 249.]
AYES
[10.34 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chataway, Christopher
Foster, Sir John


Astor, John
Clegg, Walter
Gaibraith, Hn. T. G.


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crouch, David
Glover, Sir Douglas


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Currie, G. B. H.
Gower, Raymond


Biffen, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Dance, James
Grant-Ferris, R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Dean, Paul
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brinton, sir Tatton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Marvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bryan, Paul
Errington, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Eyre, Reginald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bullus, Sir Eric
Farr, John
Hiley, Joseph




Hill, J. E. B.
Monro, Hector
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stodart, Anthony


Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Summers, Sir Spencer


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Temple, John M.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Waddington, David


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walters, Dennis


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wiggin, A. W.


Kitson, Timothy
Pounder, Rafton
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Lane, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pym, Francis
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lubbock, Eric
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


McMaster, Stanley
Royle, Anthony
Wylle, N. R.


Maude, Angus
Russell, Sir Ronald



Mawby, Ray
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr Jasper More and


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil


Anderson, Donald
Foley, Maurice
McCann, John


Archer, Peter
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacDermot, Niall


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnes, Michael
Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert


Barnett, Joel
Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bence, Cyril
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin



Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Binns, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Manuel, Archie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mapp, Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cant, R. B.
Hazell, Bert
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Chapman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coe, Dennis
Horner, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold


Concannon, J. D.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Albert E.


Dalyell, Tam
Howle, W.
Orbach, Maurice


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Park, Trevor


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dewar, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dickens, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Driberg, Tom
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ryan, John


Ellis, John
Lee, John (Reading)
Sheldon, Robert


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Remée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Ennals, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ensor, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie







Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wallace, George
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Woof, Robert


Tinn, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Urwin, T. W.
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Varley, Eric C.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Clause 22

DETERMINATION OF APPEALS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 25, line 10, at end insert:
(2) In the exercise of his powers under the preceding subsection the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made to him by the applicant or appellant.
Clause 22 involves a reserve power of the Secretary of State to decide appeals which, under Clause 21, would otherwise go to a person to whom those powers had been delegated. The Amendment would give the appellant, under Clause 14, or the applicant, under other provisions, the right to tell the Secretary of State that he wanted the decision taken by the Secretary of State and not by a person to whom those powers had been delegated.
The Minister of State rightly said in Committee that there was nothing to prevent an applicant or an appellant telling the Secretary of State that he wanted him to exercise his powers under Clause 22. But, when a radical change of this kind is being made, it could do no harm to write in clear information that the right exists, and that, when these representations are made, the Secretary of State shall have regard to them. This is not technically or legally necessary, but it seems to us to be desirable.

10.45 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged for the hon. and learned Gentleman's concluding words, because if he will study subsection (2) he will see that the Secretary of State is required to give his reasons for calling in a decision to the reporter, if one has been appointed, to the appellant, to the authority and to any person, other than the applicant, who has made representations. This means that if the reasons must be given to these four sets of people, regard will be paid to the views of them all.
The Amendment is undesirable because it would disproportionately single

out one of the four as being particularly deserving of the Secretary of State's ear. I am not lacking in sympathy for the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be wrong to over-emphasise the position of one of the four classes of party, as it were.

Mr. James Davidson: I need not add to the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). I support the Amendment. I cannot understand why special attention should not be paid to all four classes of party to which the Minister of State referred.

Dr. Mabon: All four are placed on exactly the same basis. If we accepted the Amendment it would seem that we were singling out the appellant as though he were especially deserving of the Secretary of State's ear, and that would be wrong.

Mr. Davidson: Why?

Dr. Mabon: Because the others have their points of view and they might be as concerned as the appellant. We must remember the authority and the reporter. I am not unsympathetic to the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be wrong to single out one party in the way they suggest.

Mr. Wylie: Is not the Minister aware that the applicant or appellant is the one person with a personal interest in the matter? He has appealed or applied and is most closely interested to know how that appeal or application will be considered. Clause 21 says, in effect, that in the ordinary case it will be considered by somebody to whom power has been delegated. Clause 22 says, meanwhile, that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State will decide the matter himself. The Amendment would make it clear to the person who is appealing or applying for a decision that it will be decided by the Secretary of State and not by somebody to whom power has been delegated.
I urge the Minister to accept that subsection (2) deals with a different point. I accept that in saying that
A direction under this section shall state the reasons …
there is no problem, but I am concerned to enable the individual to write to the Secretary of State—as he legally may; he may not know that and the Amendment would make the position clear—saying, "I want you to decide this under Clause 22. I do not want you to delegate this decision to somebody else under Clause 21."
That is the point the Minister seems to have overlooked.

Mr. MacArthur: I thought the Minister was going to answer that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I must remind the hon. Member that we are on Report and not in Committee.

Mr. MacArthur: I very much hope that the Minister will seek the leave of the House to speak again. I said in debate on a previous Amendment that I was not a Member of the Committee on the Bill, but I am surprised to hear what the Minister has just said, because it seemed to me that he was answering an argument which was not advanced by my hon. and learned Friend, but an argument on a different subsection.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I was not.

Mr. MacArthur: Surely he was. This Amendment relates to Clause 22(1) and not Clause 22(2). Surely it is right that the applicant or the appellant should be permitted to make representations to the Secretary of State and have the right to have them listened to by the Secretary of State when the Secretary of State is determining what action to take under subsection (1). It is right, surely, when the Secretary of State is determining whether or not the appeal should be heard by himself or by a body outside, to whom he can delegate the appeal procedure under Clause 21, that the applicant or the appellant should be able to make representations to the Secretary of State, and have the statutory protection of having attention paid by the Secretary of State to those representations.
The Minister seemed to me to assume that this Amendment related to Clause 22(2), but, of course, it does no such thing. It is far more important that the representations made by the applicant or the appellant should be taken note of by the Secretary of State when he is in the process of considering whether the appeal should be delegated or not, than later—a stage which is not reached till the Secretary of State has made up his mind that, "I am going to hear this appeal myself." Surely it is earlier in the process of consideration by the Secretary of State that the applicant or the appellant should have this right.
It is for that reason that it seems to me that—wrongly—the Minister was answering the argument in relation to another subsection. I hope he will seek the leave of the House to explain his position further.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: By leave of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, by his Amendment, wants specifically to say that the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made by the applicant or the appellant. I was merely pointing out that under subsection (2) the Secretary of State, when he decides on a direction, must explain his reasons to the reporter, if one is appointed, and to the other three categories of persons or bodies. The Secretary of State could hardly make a decision without explaining it to the different parties and without listening to the different parties.
Hon. Members are making heavy weather of this. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that this is a small point. Of course, in deciding, the Secretary of State will listen to the representations of the different parties. The Secretary of State does read his letters. I assure the House of that. It would be wrong to say in the subsection that he shall listen to one particular party; the implication of that would be that he would not listen to the others. That would be quite wrong.

Mr. Wylie: The Minister will appreciate that he was talking of calling in a direction. What the Amendment deals with is a different situation—when the Secretary of State is deciding whether or not to make a direction.

Dr. Mabon: The Amendment does absolutely nothing to alter that situation.


By neglecting to mention the other parties its implication is that the other parties are not interested. It does not follow that they will not be. There are numerous cases in planning appeals, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, where so-called third parties or fourth parties have often a greater direct interest—or, anyway, a greater interest in the long run—in the matter which is being determined than the applicant or appellant. This is really a very small point, and I am surprised that we should fall out about it at this stage. I put it to the House that it is not worth adding these words. The Amendment would discriminate unfairly, and it would not do any good.

Mr. James Davidson: The Minister of State says that the Amendment would not do anything, but in my view what it would do would be this. The appellant or applicant may take legal advice as he can do if he is dissatisfied. Many country lawyers find it very difficult to keep abreast of the mass of legislation that is passed. Unless such a man sees some paragraph or indication that the Measure gives a right of appeal and that it is within his client's rights to make an application to the Secretary of State, he will advise his client that it cannot be done, that the matter is closed, and that there is nothing more he can do. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 44

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE UNDER S. 43

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 43, line 21, leave out 'owner of the building' and insert:
'person responsible for the contravention mentioned in section 43(1) above'.
The effect of the Amendment is simply to shift liability to penalties for noncompliance with a listed building enforcement notice from the owner to the person actually responsible for the contravention, which is an eminently sensible thing to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LISTED BUILDINGS IN NEED OF REPAIR

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 47, line 33, at end insert:
(7) A person aggrieved by a decision of the sheriff on an application under subsection (6) above may appeal against a decision to the Court of Session, but on a question of law only.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 25.

Dr. Mabon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In the Committee, the noble Lord, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) moved an Amendment to provide that where a person felt aggrieved by a decision of the sheriff under Clause 49(6) on an application by a person with an interest in a building which the local planning authority proposed to acquire compulsorily under Clause 49, he should have the right of appeal to the Court of Session. I agreed that there was a need for such a provision in this Clause, to give a similar right of appeal to that contained in Clause 52(6) in relation to minimum compensation in the case of buildings deliberately left derelict, and it undertook to introduce a Government Amendment on Report. This Amendment carries out that undertaking, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to this defect in the original Bill.

Earl of Dalkeith: In expressing my appreciation to the Minister for having reacted so favourably, I may add that my pleasure is matched only by my disappointment that he is not seeking to implement an Amendment which seeks to alter the period from two months to six months, but as it deals with an entirely different Clause I cannot now discuss it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52

MINIMUM COMPENSATION IN CASE OF BUILDING DELIBERATELY LEFT DERELICT

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 50, line 17, after '49(6)' insert and (7)'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 60

CONSTITUTION OF PLANNING INQUIRY COMMISSIONS

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 53, line 20, leave out 'Treasury' and insert:
'Minister for the Civil Service.'
The House knows that on 1st November, 1968, responsibility for staff matters, including remuneration, passed from the Treasury to the Minister for the Civil Service. This Amendment merely takes account of the transfer of function.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 63

DELEGATION OF PLANNING FUNCTIONS TO OFFICERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 57, line 15, after 'authority' insert:
'who in their opinion is suitably qualified or experienced for the purpose'.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) sought in Committee to make delegation possible only, to quote his Amendment
to any suitably qualified officer of the authority".
The hon. Gentleman may remember that I resisted his Amendment on two grounds which I shall not now repeat. I emphasised that I had every confidence in the good sense of the authorities in the circumstances, but I undertook to look again at the wording of the Clause. This Amendment, which is very carefully drafted, tries to meet the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am grateful to him.

Amendment agreed to.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 57, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 29, in page 57, line 29, leave out paragraph (d).

Mr. Wylie: Clause 63 is one to which we took strong exception on principle in

the Committee because in certain circumstances it seeks to give power to the local planning authority to delegate its planning functions to officials. We said that it was wrong in principle and that local authorities elected to exercise statutory powers had no right to delegate them to individuals, and that it was thoroughly bad for the individual to whom delegation was made. In this case we have confined our objections to two of the more glaring instances which illustrate the effect of this general proposals, namely, applications for planning permission under Section 12 of the 1957 Act and applications for consent under the Control of Advertising Regulations.
These are both matters about which individuals concerned feel strongly. An application for planning permission under Section 12 can mean a great deal, financially or otherwise, to the person making the application, and applications under the Control of Advertising Regulations are usually important to the companies concerned. It is entirely wrong that a decision on a matter of that nature should be left to a named official. It puts the official in a most invidious position and exposes him to the most undesirable pressures. I have not met a single planning officer or official of local authorities—and I have some experience of planning—who has ever suggested that this would be desirable. Since this Bill was published, those to whom I have spoken have strongly opposed the proposal.
I cannot think of any planning officer who would want to be in the invidious position of deciding personally under Section 12. We know that committees and authorities often take decisions on the advice of the planning officer, but the decision is taken with the anonymity which goes with a committee and the planning officer is in no way himself responsible.
One can readily imagine the pressures which can be brought to bear. I do not mean corrupt practices or anything like that, although one cannot exclude the possibility of that coming in—but just the pressures which can be brought to bear on an individual planning officer, particularly in a relatively small burgh where everybody knows everybody else and he is the person who has to make a decision which may materially affect the


business or livelihood of another individual with whom he is on friendly terms.
It is true that he can disclaim responsibility under provisions made later in this Clause, but the fact that it is necessary to write in qualifications of that nature puts a question mark over the desirability of the power in the first place. These are thoroughly bad proposals which are thoroughly unnecessary, and the less we have to do with them the better.

Mr. Monro: I echo the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). This is one of the worst proposals in the Bill. I am glad we opposed it strongly in Committee and that we are to do so again tonight. The planning committee of a local authority is one of the most interesting committees of which to be a member, and therefore few planning committees will be prepared to delegate authority to take decisions. Although this delegation of power is discretionary, it is not one that we should encourage by writing it into the Bill. It is a power that the officials do not want and one which should be retained by the elected representatives.
I accept that the elected representatives on planning committees take careful note of the advice given to them by the planning officer. This is correct, because the planning officer has studied the legal and other factors to be considered before he makes a recommendation to the committee. The final decision must lie with the elected representatives. They are elected to make decisions as elected representatives and to take responsibility for doing so. An official does not take a post with a local authority and expect to take responsibility for the difficult decisions that need to be taken on planning.
I want the Minister to give a clear answer tonight—he did not do so in Committee—on where the pressure has come from for this change. I, too, have taken the trouble to sound out local authorities and planning officers. I have not found one who advocates this change. On most planning committees the elected representatives cover, particularly in rural areas, a wide spread of the area they represent. It is rare for a decision to

come before a planning committee without one or two of its members having personal knowledge of the facts, in addition to the advice given to them by the planning officer. This is valuable, because all facets of the decision can be considered by the authority.
The Minister will no doubt contend that there are many simple issues concerned with, for example, garages, bicycle sheds or pigeon lofts, which do not need to be considered in detail by a planning committee. But it should still be the responsibility of the committee and not of the planning officer to make the decision. This is particularly so in connection with some of the matters mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend. I am opposed to delegating the power of decision on advertising matters to the planning officer. There are frequently pressures from the sources which wish to display advertisements which it would be unfair for an official to bear as his sole responsibility. When an industrialist wants an early decision about whether he can develop a site or bring a factory to an area, the elected representatives must take the responsibility for giving a quick decision in consultation with the planning officer.
I think this Clause cuts across the basis—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Clause. The hon. Gentleman has so far related his remarks to the Amendment, and I hope he will continue to do so.

Mr. Monro: Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Clause, on which we are discussing this particular Amendment, does give the planning authority power to delegate authority to a planning officer or other designated official. The whole issue here cuts across the basis of elected local government, because it is removing the main power of a planning committee composed of elected representatives who are sent there by their constituents to do this very job. That is why I strongly support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend and hope that the Minister will at least see sense on this occasion.

Earl of Dalkeith: I support these two Amendments, and very much endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has been saying. This is a very important matter indeed,


and, as I see it, it is a constitutional change. It is a complete departure from what is recognised practice both in Parliament and in local government. Never before, so far as I am aware, have powers been transferred from the elected representatives to the officials. Where will this stop? Maybe if the Government were to transfer some of its decision-making to the civil servants we might get some better answers than we are getting now, but I ask the Minister to take this point seriously. It is a major constitutional change and should be recognised as such.

Mr. Galbraith: I rise to intervene only briefly, but I hope the Minister will explain why he wishes to have this change. Tonight we have been making a great song and dance about local democracy. The trouble with this proposal is that it is not local democracy but local bureaucracy, and that seems to me to be the very negation of freedom and the reason why we should accept the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sorry that the brevity of that speech was not equalled by the quality of the argument.
Let me give the assurance on Amendment No. 29, as I did in Committee, that Clause 63(1)(d) will not be commenced if appeals are abolished. That assurance still stands.
With reference to the general argument exemplified by Amendment No. 28, I appreciated the debate in Committee more than the debate tonight because it has necessarily been truncated at this stage. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) is arguing that the matter should be mandatory in reference to officials or not, but I must tell him that this is not mandatory, it is permissive. If all local authorities in Scotland agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, not one of them will implement any part of this. If some local authorities which delegate later see the error of their ways, they will retract whatever delegation they agreed to. If they delegate they can do so under very stringent conditions, and the official, in certain circumstances, can ask to be relieved of the decision.
I can think of no more flexible Clause than this, given the argument that the burden of work on elected members is

so great that where policy has been settled by the elected members, and it is a purely administrative matter, this should be simply carried out as a delegated function, subject to recall and review, as is the case in many great business organisations and departments of State.
Many hon. Members, before they go to sleep tonight, will doubtless read the Maud Report and reflect on what may be said by the Royal Commission when it reports on the situation in Scotland. If they do so, they will remind themselves that the pressure on elected representatives is becoming greater and greater. If the essence of the Redcliffe-Maud Report is to be accepted, clearly the delegation of functions is to be acknowledged as playing some part in the work of local authorities. This Clause is written in for that reason. I ask the Opposition not to resist every change we are proposing. They may be conservative in the wider sense, but they must be allowed sometimes to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Monro: Who pressurised the hon. Gentleman into putting this provision into the Bill? Was it the Convention of Royal Burghs or the Association of County Councils?

Dr. Mabon: I have had some experience in this. I have met as many planning people as the hon. Gentleman and I have not experienced such pressure. I agree that the majority of officials are not in favour of this provision because of the heavy burden entailed if they are asked by elected members to do it. I hope that the councils will take that into account when considering delegation that might be unfair to officials. That, of course, is why we have put the safeguard in. The Government are not being bullied by the Convention of Royal Burghs and have not been cajoled by the Association of County Councils or pressurised by the Association of Counties of Cities. There is a general wish that we should do something like this and the actual application will be done by the councils themselves.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Minister of State has referred to the Redcliffe-Maud Report, which came out today. That Report deals with England—not


even with Wales as well. He may spend hours later tonight reading it, but we and many people in Scotland are waiting for Wheatley. That is the report on local government in Scotland for which we are still to wait for some weeks yet. That is the report which will affect Scottish planning procedures. He seems to have fallen into the old trap of following what has been happening in England—not even in Wales on this occasion.

Dr. Mabon: I referred to the Royal Commission, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government cannot and do not dictate to a Royal Commission when to report. Royal Commissions are independent.

Mr. Campbell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman made reference to the Redcliffe-Maud Report. If he is to put forward proposals and plans based on that Report, what will happen when the Wheatley Commission reports? That is

what we are waiting for. We believe this provision to be unnecessary and unwise for the reasons explained so eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie).

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I support the Amendment. I would be surprised if Edinburgh asked for this arrangement. Will the Minister of State tell us if it did? If it did not, why is he overruling its wishes?

Dr. Mabon: I have had no letter from Edinburgh protesting about this provision. I equally admit that I have had no letter from Edinburgh urging me to go on with it. In the absence of advice from Edinburgh, I think I am courageous enough to go on alone.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 196.

Division No. 250.]
AYES
[11.20 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Grant, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Percival, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gurden, Harold
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Royle, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Scott, Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bryan, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Buchana-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stodart, Anthony


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Temple, John M.


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Waddington, David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dance, James
Lane, David
Walters, Dennis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maude, Angus
Wiggin, A. W.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Emery, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wylie, N. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Foster, Sir John
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Jasper More and


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nott, John
Mr. Reginald Eyre.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles


Anderson, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth


Archer, Peter
Gardner, Tony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Joel
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Neal, Harold


Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Harper, Joseph
Oram, Albert E.


Binns, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orme, Stanley


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Haseldine, Norman
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)




Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hooley, Frank
Paget, R. T.


Cant, R. B.
Horner, John
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor


Chapman, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Coe, Denis
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Coleman, Donald
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Concannon, J. D.
Hoy, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hynd, John
Richard, Ivor


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Ht. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ryan, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sheldon, Robert


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dewar, Donald
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Dickens, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Tad
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John (Reading)
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Edelman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Wallace, George


Ennals, David
McCann, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackie, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Mr. Ernest Perry and Dr. Miller

Clause 77

LOCAL REGISTER OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 70, line 39, at beginning insert:

(1) A development order may make provision for requiring applicants for planning permission for development or for any class of development prescribed by or under the order to furnish at such time and to such persons as may be so prescribed such information with respect to the application as may be so prescribed.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 106

SHORT TITLE, CITATION AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 87, line 23, after 'Act', insert:
', except so far as it provides for Joint Planning Inquiry Commissions and'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

TABLE


Referred matter
Responsible Ministers


(1) Application for planning permission or appeal—



(a) relating to operational land of statutory undertakers, or to land in the case of which there are present the circumstances mentioned in section 69(2) of this Act, or the corresponding provision of the Act of 1968.
The Secretary of State, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the appropriate Minister (if different).


(b) relating to other land.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government.


(2) Proposal that a government department should give a direction under section 32 of the Act of 1947 or section 41 of the Act of 1962, or that development should be carried out by or on behalf of a government department.
The Secretary of State, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister (if different) in charge of the government department concerned.

2. In this Schedule—

(a) 'the Act of 1962' and 'the Act of 1968' mean respectively the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1968;
(b) 'commission' means a Joint Planning Inquiry Commission constituted under section (Commissions to inquire into planning matters affecting Scotland and England) of this Act; and
(c) 'referred matter' means a matter referred to a commission under that section.

3. Where this Schedule refers to the appropriate Minister, the local authority or the local planning authority, the reference shall be construed, according to its context, as if it were contained in the Act of 1947 or in the Act of 1962.

The reference

4. Two or more of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of section (Commissions to inquire into planning matters affecting Scotland and England) of this Act may be referred to the same commission if it appears to the responsible Ministers that they relate to proposals to carry out development for similar purposes on different sites.

5. Where a referred matter relates to a proposal to carry out development for any purpose at a particular site, the responsible Ministers may also refer to the commission the question whether development for that purpose should be instead carried out at an alternative site, whether in Scotland or in England, or partly in one and partly in the other.

New Schedule

JOINT PLANNING INQUIRY COMMISSIONS

Interpretation

1. In relation to matters specified in the first column of the Table below (being matters which under section (Commissions to inquire into planning matters affecting Scotland and England) of this Act, may be referred to a Joint Planning Inquiry Commission), 'the responsible Ministers', for the purposes of this Schedule, are those specified opposite in the second column of the Table, acting jointly.

6. The responsible Ministers shall, on referring a matter to a commission, state in the reference the reasons therefor and may draw the attention of the commission to any points which seem to them to be relevant to their inquiry.

7.—(1) A reference to a commission of a proposal that development should be carried out by or on behalf of a government department may be made at any time.

(2) A reference of any other matter mentioned in subsection (1) of section (Commissions to inquire into planning matters affecting Scotland and England) of this Act may be made at any time before, but not after, the determination of the relevant referred application or the relevant appeal or, as the case may be, the giving of the relevant direction, notwithstanding that an inquiry or other hearing has been held into the proposal by a person appointed by any Minister for the purpose.

Notice of reference to persons and authorities concerned

8.—(1) Notice of the making of a reference to a commission shall be published in the prescribed manner, and a copy of the notice shall be served on the local planning authority for the area in which it is proposed that the relevant development shall be carried out.

(2) In the case of an application for planning permission referred under section 13 of


the Act of 1947 or section 22 of the Act of 1962, or an appeal under section 14 of the Act of 1947 or section 23 of the Act of 1962, notice shall also be served—

(a) on the applicant or appellant; and
(b) on any person who has made representations, relating to the subject matter of the application or appeal, which the local planning authority are required to take into account under section 35(4) or 36(4) of the Act of 1959 or, as the case may be, section 17(2) or (3) of the Act of 1962.

(3) In the case of a proposal that a direction should be given by a government department under section 32 of the Act of 1947 or section 41 of the Act of 1962 with respect to any development, notice shall also be served on the local authority or statutory undertakers applying for authorisation to carry out that development.

(4) In this paragraph, 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government jointly in the exercise of their respective powers under the Act of 1947 and the Act of 1962.

Proceedings of commission on reference

9. A commission inquiring into a referred matter shall—

(a) identify and investigate the considerations relevant to, or the technical or scientific aspects of, that matter which in their opinion are relevant to the question whether the proposed development should be permitted to be carried out, and assess the importance to be attached to those considerations or aspects;
(b) thereafter, comply with paragraph 10 below in respect of affording to persons an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, one or more members of the commission;
(c) report to the responsible Ministers on the said matter.

10. A commission shall afford the following persons an opportunity of appearing and being heard as aforesaid:—

(a) in any case, the local planning authority, if the authority so desire;
(b) in the case of a matter mentioned in section 61(1)(a), (b) or (c) of this Act or section 62(1)(a), (b)) or (c) of the Act of 1968, the applicant if he so desires; and
(c) in the case of an application or appeal mentioned in the said section 61(1)(a) or (b) or 62(1)(a) or (b), any person who has made representations relating to the subject matter of the application or appeal which the local planning authority are required to take into account under section 35(4) or 36(4) of the Act of 1959 or section 17(2) or (3) of the Act of 1962.

11.—(1) The provisions of section 13(2) of the Act of 1947 and of that subsection as applied by section 14(2) of that Act, and of sections 21(6) and 22(4) of this Act, relating to the affording of an opportunity of appearing

before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State, shall not apply to an application for planning permission, or an appeal, referred to a commission.

(2) Sections 22(5) and 23(5) of the Act of 1962 (duty of Minister of Housing and Local Government to afford parties a hearing in cases of called-in applications for planning permission and appeals), and sections 21(6) and 22(4) of the Act of 1968 (corresponding provision in relation to appeal determined by a person appointed by the Minister under Part III of that Act) shall not apply to an application for planning permission, or an appeal, referred to a commission.

Local inquiries

12. A Commission shall, for the purpose of complying with paragraph 10 above, hold a local inquiry; and they may hold such an inquiry if they think it necessary for the proper discharge of their functions, notwithstanding that neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire the opportunity of appearing and being heard.

13. Where a commission are to hold a local inquiry in connection with a referred matter and it appears to the responsible Ministers, in the case of some other matter falling to be determined by a Minister of the Crown and required or authorised by an enactment other than this Schedule to be the subject of a local inquiry, that the two matters are so far cognate that they should be considered together, the responsible Ministers may direct that the two inquiries be held concurrently or combined as one inquiry.

14. For the purposes of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, a local inquiry held by a commission—

(a) if held in Scotland, shall be treated as one held by the Secretary of State in pursuance of a duty imposed by a statutory provision; and
(b) if held in England, shall be treated as one held by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in pursuance of a duty so imposed.

15.—(1) Subsections (4) to (9) of section 50 of the Act of 1945 (power to summon and examine witnesses, and expenses at inquiries) shall apply to a local inquiry held by a commission in Scotland as they apply to an inquiry held under that section.

(2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 290 of the Local Government Act 1933 (evidence and costs at local inquiries) shall apply in relation to a local inquiry held by a commission in England as they apply in relation to an inquiry caused to be held by a department under subsection (1) of that section, with the substitution for references to a department (other than the first reference in subsection (4)) of references to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Supplementary

16.—(1) A commission may, with the approval of the Ministers and at their expense, arrange for the carrying out (whether by the


commission themselves or by others) of research of any kind appearing to the Commission to be relevant to a referred matter.

(2) In this paragraph 'the Ministers' means the Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, acting jointly; but their functions under this paragraph may, by arrangements made between them, be exercised by either acting on behalf of both.

17. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, and to any directions given to them by the responsible Ministers, a commission shall have power to regulate their own procedure.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 8

ADAPTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF ENACTMENTS, ETC.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 117, line 42, at end insert:
34. In Part I of Schedule 1 (Voluntary combination of authorities) there shall be added the following paragraph:—
'6. Where the Secretary of State has by order constituted a joint planning committee a body corporate under the provisions of this part of this Schedule he may by order provide that such joint planning committee shall exercise the powers conferred upon its constituent authorities by virtue of section 9 of this Act (Adoption and approval of local plans)'.
35. In Part II of Schedule 1 (Combination of authorities by order) there shall be added the following paragraph:—
'4. Where the Secretary of State has by order constituted a joint planning committee a body corporate under the provisions of this part of this Schedule he may by order provide that such joint planning committee shall exercise the powers conferred upon its constituent authorities by virtue of section 9 of this Act (Adoption and approval of local plans)'.
This Amendment seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to utilise the existing statutory provisions of the 1947 Act by extending them to enable joint planning committees to fulfil the functions delegated to planning authorities under Clause 9 of the Bill. Clause 9 puts local planning authorities in the position of deciding whether to accept recommendations or objections promoted at a public inquiry. It was a Clause to which we took strong exception earlier this evening.
Since the provision is in the Bill, this Amendment seeks to achieve in another

way in certain circumstances a separation of responsibilities by giving to a joint planning committee, where such committee exists and where it has been constituted a body corporate by the provisions of the first Schedule to the 1947 Act, the power to exercise the approval provisions with regard to local plans. Instead of the local planning authority being the final arbiter in its own case where a joint planning committee exists and is a body corporate, the Secretary of State can by order provide that it will fulfil these provisions. It would avoid the invidious position of the local planning authority being a judge in its own case.
I do not imagine that the Minister will accept the Amendment, but it has behind it a good deal of logic. One of the basic weaknesses of the Bill is that there is not a separation of functions between local planning authorities and some other authority responsible for other planning functions. It is one of the problems in the Bill.
We have now an opportunity to give to joint planning committees powers appropriate to a top-tier authority such as may come out of the proposals of the Wheatley Commission in advance of a restructuring of local government. We now have the opportunity to build in an ad interim provision to create top-tier authorities.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not fault the Amendment on the ground that it is defective, in that it says
… section 9 of this Act",
instead of
… section 9 of the Act of 1969",
although that has to be borne in mind in considering whether to adopt it at this late stage. But it would be undesirable to spell out one power, because it would cast doubt upon others enshrined in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1947.
While I agree that it is the intention to encourage people to come into voluntary combinations, the Amendment is unnecessary because this is provided for in Schedule 1 of the 1947 Act.
It is unnecessary, since it would cast doubt upon other powers, and on the ground that it is defective, I could not advise the House to make the Amendment.

Mr. Wylie: I do not agree that it is unnecessary because it would be quite possible for local authorities to get together under Schedule 1 to the 1947 Act for certain purposes when they were not willing to do it for the purpose of exercising their individual powers under Section 9.
The Amendment was aimed at the situation where a joint planning committee exists, and the Secretary of State creates it a body corporate. In that situation he can impose those powers upon it. In that sense, one would achieve planning powers in something of the nature of a top-tier authority which was constituted for quite different purposes.
However, I have made the point, and it is clear that the Minister does not intend to accept it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 119, line 7, after '16', insert '(1) (a), (f) or (g)'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Schedule 9

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 122, line 38, leave out paragraph 1.
Under the provisions of this paragraph, it would appear as though, pending the application of the new legislation, there will be a freeze on planning proposals. The paragraph says:
Until the repeal of Part II of the Act of 1947 as respects any area (whether the whole or part of the district of a local planning authority), proposals for any alterations or additions to a development plan in force in the area shall not without the approval of the Secretary of State be submitted to him under section 4 of that Act.
It is difficult to understand why it is proposed to do that. We do not know when the new legislation will come into force, and this provision means that it will not be possible for alterations or additions to be submitted to the Secretary of State without his prior approval. I do not understand the purpose behind it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am glad that we are discussing the Amendment, because our attention has been drawn to

some defects which we shall come to when we deal with the next group of Amendments.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a sound question when he asks why we have the paragraph there when the old system and the new system coming together might cause delay.
I give the assurance that approval to alterations and additions to old-style development plans will not be withheld unreasonably in the transitional period. But it would be both unsatisfactory and potentially wasteful for both planning authorities and the Secretary of State if the power to set a programme for new-style business were not accompanied by power to control the old-style business.
There has to be this distinct restriction, so to speak, to allow the transition to go ahead smoothly. For that reason, paragraph 1 is there.
I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising this point. I hope that he will accept my assurance. We have other Amendments on Schedule 9, but his Amendment drawing this matter to our attention has been useful.

Mr. Wylie: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that reply and, in particular, for saying that consents for applications for modifications will not be unreasonably withheld. That was what I could not quite understand. However, I take the point of his argument, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 122, line 38, after first 'of', insert 'the enactments in'.
This Amendment and the next two are drafting Amendments. I am indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) for drawing attention to this matter by virtue of the last debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 37, in page 122, line 38, after 1947', insert
'mentioned in Schedule 10 to this Act'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

No. 38, in page 122, line 44, after 'of', insert 'the said enactments in'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 39, in line 3, after 'authorities;', insert
'to make provision for Planning Inquiry Commissions;'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this stage in the Bill's progress, and at this late hour, I have no wish to detain the House with a long speech. But it is only right to pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have applied themselves to the technical difficulties of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was appreciative of the progress which was made in Committee. There have been disagreements—that was inevitable—but a number of real improvements to the Bill have resulted.
This is one of the Government's modernising Measures. Its principal aim is to make new provision for development plans which, in their 1947 form, no longer fully serve the needs of society. This has been borne in on us for a long time by the people most intimately concerned. The plans themselves will be more flexible and comprehensive in future. Far more responsibility for them will be placed on the local planning authority, and much greater opportunity will be provided for the participation of the public during their formation.
These are the really big changes that the Bill makes. The opportunity has been taken to provide for a large number of other improvements in various departments of planning law, such as the enforcement of planning control, the machinery of land acquisition, the care of buildings of architectural or historic interest, and in many other fields.
I know that it has been argued that it is premature and that Scotland is not yet ready for this Measure and that we should have waited until the Royal Commission on Local Government had reported. I do not doubt that that would have been followed by the suggestion that we should wait until it was implemented.

That is how we get delay in relation to a problem which has been obvious to us for quite a time. This criticism is completely misconceived. It would be folly to postpone the introduction of the new system of development planning with all its advantages until an indefinite date in future. There is nothing in the development plan provisions of the Bill that either prejudices or pre-empts decisions about the scope of local planning authority areas. Indeed, there is everything to be said for seeking co-operation now and accustoming local authorities to the new outlook to the greatest extent possible.
I feel that in this new legislation we are laying the foundation of the system of town and country planning that will last for quite a time. I am proud to ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on listening to our deliberations, it may not have occurred to you that this is a Bill to which we gave a general welcome. We have all along recognised that changes were desirable in the planning field, and the Second Reading debate on this legislation made our position perfectly clear, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree. Just as the 1947 Act laid the basis of post-war development for almost a quarter of a century, so the basis of this legislation will set the pattern of our development during the closing years of this century, and we welcome it.
We welcome in particular the distinction which is being drawn between the structure plan and the local plan, because that is surely in accordance with all modern principles of regional planning. But we must put on record our concern about the absence of the appropriate machinery. I think that the right level of responsibility has to be struck. The authority responsible for the structure plan cannot properly be the same authority responsible for the local plan, and as the Bill stands that is what it says.
We have never argued that this Bill should be delayed until the Royal Commission on Local Government has reported. We cannot wait for this legislation until the Royal Commission's report is implemented, because that may


take many years. This has to come now, in advance of those proceedings. It may be that the Royal Commission's report and the new structure of local government following thereon will set up a 2-tier system in which the structure plan responsibility will be in the top tier. I am not sure that it necessarily follows that the top-tier authorities recommended by the Wheatley Commission will necessarily be the most appropriate bodies or groupings for planning purposes. It may be that some other grouping for planning purposes will be more desirable. It is therefore better that it should be left flexible until we see how the thing works out, but two tiers of responsibility are obviously necessary and desirable.
The features of the Bill which we strongly dislike have been argued in Committee, and we are indebted to Mr. Speaker for selecting these crucial issues of principle for debate again on the Floor of the House.
The Planning Advisory Group report was in a sense a United Kingdom report in so far as it recommended basic changes in the structure of planning for both countries—the structure plan, the local plan, and so on—but in so far as it related to changes in the relationship between the central Government and local government, and in so far as it related to the things that we were talking about earlier tonight, it seemed to be concerned wholly with problems in England, and we repeat that we regard the proposals for objections to the local plan to be decided in the last resort by the local authority, the delegation of planning responsibility by the Secretary of State to individual persons appointed by him, and the delegation by local planning authorities of their power to named officials, as bad tendencies, and we very much regret that those features of the Bill have survived the Committee and Report stages.
With that qualification we give a general welcome to the Bill, and we look forward to seeing how it works in practice.

11.48 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I rise to place on record the view that Part V which deals with buildings of architectural and historic interest is a major step forward in

achieving the preservation which so many people, societies, and bodies want to see, and I sincerely hope that it will do what we hope it will do.
I am a little disappointed that so many of the societies which are so vocal when it is usually too late to do something about preserving buildings have come forward and given us the minimum of help in ensuring that we get this legislation right. I think that perhaps with luck the Minister and his advisers have produced something that is very worthwhile, and I hope that the Bill will achieve what we all hope to achieve.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I should like to associate myself with what the Secretary of State said about the work done on the Bill by hon. Members on both sides. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, who has handled it more or less on his own all the way through.
We thought that new legislation on planning in Scotland was necessary now. We have not suggested that it should be postponed, but we had hoped that more progress would have been made by now in the reform of local government, and that, having started six years ago, we would have proposals before us which we could have related to the provisions of the Bill. We do not want to postpone the changes needed. We have objections to some of the procedures, but we hope that this will give us a pattern of planning procedures in Scotland which can be used successfully by the present local authorities and that new ones, eventually, and that many changes will not be necessary for some years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — INVESTMENT GRANTS (DAIRY MACHINERY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

11.51 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: I want to put this matter into context. Under the Industrial Development Act, 1966, grants were made payable in respect


of expenditure on new plant and machinery which was to be used for carrying on a qualifying industrial process. Shortly before that Act, the Ministry of Agriculture declared that it regarded as a qualifying process the process of bottling milk. So milk processers who invested in new equipment for this purpose became eligible for grants.
Milk bottling is done in this way. Soiled milk bottles are carried in crates to the bottle washing machines, then to a cold store, where they are kept sterile, from which, after being filled and capped, they are carried, again in crates. Under the requirements of the Milk and Dairies General Regulations, 1959, Regulation 26(2), every dairy farmer or distributor is required to cause any appliance used by him for any purpose which is brought into contact with milk to be cleaned in accordance with the Regulations and to be thoroughly clean before use.
It follows that the crates are essentially part of the bottling process. As well as carrying the bottles in and out of the washing machinery, they hold them while they are filled and capped. We cannot do with milk bottles what we do with soiled clothes—throw them into a washing machine, where they tumble about. They must be scrupulously clean, because of those Regulations. It is obvious, therefore, that they are an essential part of the whole process of cleaning and bottling milk. If they are not scrupulously clean for their duty, the processor can be prosecuted under the Food and Drugs Act.
The nonsense of the situation is that grants are payable in respect of bottle washing machinery, the machine which puts the bottles into the crates, the conveyors that carry the crates to the cold store, the cold store itself, and even the machinery that is used to wash the floor of the dairy. But the machinery that is available for washing the crates, which is an integral part of the whole process, is, by some logic that wholly escapes me, not available for grant.
Although grants were originally paid in respect of crate washing machinery, following some blinkered process of thought that goes on in the Board of Trade, they were withdrawn. The justification for the withdrawal was explained

in a letter written to me by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Dated 7th March of this year, the letter read:
It was the view of the Board in rejecting applications for grant on such machinery that the process it carries out is closely linked to the distribution of milk, which is not itself an activity qualifying for grant.
My hon. Friend went on:
I appreciate, of course, that modern automated dairy plants can be so highly integrated that it is difficult to distinguish that part which is devoted to crate washing machinery. Indeed, the Board's own Investment Grants Offices encountered this difficulty and in some cases paid grant.
The Minister continued:
In the light of the representations you have made, I have taken further advice, which has served to confirm that equipment used for the washing of these crates is not eligible for investment grant. It could be argued that machinery used for placing bottles of milk in crates is machinery for packing the bottles, and thus eligible for grant under Section 1(3)(c) of the Industrial Development Act, provided the conditions of that Section were met. Machinery for washing the crates into which the bottles are to be put cannot, however, be said to be used 'for packing' the bottles, neither can it be said to be used for any other process incidental to the making of an article. There is thus no provision of the Act under which payments can properly be made in respect of this equipment.
I hope that the Minister has enough sense of humour to admit that he wrote that with his tongue in his cheek, for it is the most palpable nonsense and rubbish.
This is not an optional extra. The processor is bound to have clean crates, in the same way as he is bound to have clean bottles. Cleaning bottles is not part of a manufacture, yet the bottle cleaning machinery is given a grant. If that machinery is deemed to be processing for the purpose of enabling grant to be paid, there is nothing in the law to prevent crate washing machinery to be equally deemed to be eligible for grant. The whole operation is part of one process. Unless the crates are clean, contamination is carried to the bottles. Unless the bottles are clean, contamination is carried to the milk. By some odd quirk it is possible for the official mind to conceive of the cleaning of bottles so that contamination is not carried to the milk, but it is incapable of appreciating that an integral part of the same process is that which makes quite sure that soiled crates do not carry contamination to the bottles.
I do not know whether the logic of the argument which I have made to the Minister will make him appreciate the nonsense which he is writing when he sends that kind of excuse, and the nonsense which the Department is making of the whole thing. It seems to me to be a classical example of niggling bureaucracy. While I appreciate that the Minister has many other more important things with which to concern himself a: length and ad nauseam, I do hope that he is not going to insult my intelligence tonight by making that kind of argument again, but that he will feel free to say tonight not only that he will look at it again, and a little more sensibly, but that he will recognise that that which is an integral part of the process can be deemed to be sufficiently integrated with the purpose of processing as to enable him to make this grant which, for such trivial reason, has been refused by his Department.

12.1 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) has said, the subject he has raised tonight has been considered in the course of correspondence between us, and I am sorry he is so dissatisfied with the letters which he has received.
Let me say at the outset that there is no dispute between us about the need for high standards of hygiene in the handling of supplies of milk for public consumption. The point at issue is confined rather to the justification for the Board of Trade's decision not to make investment grants on crate washing machinery while making grants on several other types of equipment commonly used in a modern dairy. It has been suggested, as my hon. and learned Friend has put so forcefully tonight, that the distinction is illogical and the decision arbitrary, but what I have to say will, I think and I hope, show that both are within the spirit and the letter of the investment grants scheme.
My hon. and learned Friend knows as well as I do the thinking behind the introduction of the investment grants scheme. It was stated in the White Paper on Investment Incentives which introduced the scheme that in the private sector the most pressing need was to

increase investment in manufacturing industry. This need, we decided, would best be met by replacing the widely dispersed effect of investment allowances by the more concentrated assistance of direct cash grants made in selected and narrower areas. The essence of such a policy is that it is selective and that it should discriminate in favour of manufacturing industry as opposed to the service sector, such as the distributive trades.
The Industrial Development Act was drafted with this in mind. The basic provision of the Act is that the Board of Trade may make grants towards capital expenditure incurred in providing machinery or plant for use in a qualifying industrial process. To cover the case of manufacturing machinery, such qualifying processes are defined in the Act to include processes for, or incidental to, the making of an article; and the Act goes on to provide that the storage and packing by a manufacturer of the goods he produces shall be treated as processes incidental to the making of an article. There is, however, no provision for the treatment of distribution as an incidental process. It is a stage further removed from manufacture than storage and packing, and, as I have said, it was never the intention that the scheme should cover distributive processes.
Applying these principles to dairy machinery, the Board has accepted from the outset of the scheme that the operation of processing and bottling of liquid milk may be regarded as a qualifying process within the meaning of the Act. The bottle of pasteurised milk, which is the end product of the operation, is regarded as the article made. As a result, grants have been paid to dairy operating firms on such productive equipment as heat treatment plant, bottle washing machines and bottling machines. Equally, grant has been paid on incidental storage and packing equipment such as refrigeration plant and machines used to place bottles in crates. My hon. and learned Friend, however, wishes the Board to go further than this and to pay grant in respect of equipment used to wash the crates into which the bottles are put. This, I am afraid, the Board cannot do. The crates are used to distribute the bottles, and the machinery used to wash them cannot be said to be used


for packing the bottles, nor for any other process incidental to the making of an article.
I am, of course, aware that in some cases grants have been paid on a complex of dairy machinery which included crate washing machines and that such payments were in part inconsistent with the policy I have just explained. As soon as this came to light, steps were, of course, taken to ensure that these erroneous payments did not recur.
I owe it to my hon. and learned Friend to explain why these mistaken payments came to be made. There is at present a tendency for forward-looking dairies to re-equip with assembly line systems which will perform all the functions necessary to convert incoming crates of empty milk bottles into crates full of bottles of processed milk. Such plants are more efficient than older methods of production, and their introduction is from every point of view advantageous. Such plants are often invoiced by the supplier on a single document, and the individual machines which compose them will usually appear all together on a single application for grant showing a single figure for the total cost. My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that in these circumstances it may not be easy for the staff of an investment grant office to distinguish at the time of application the items which relate to crate washing, and it was this distinction which was not in every case made. Crate-washing machines account for only a small fraction of the total cost of the plant used in a dairy.
It has been argued on behalf of the dairies that if a plant is so closely physically integrated, it is not sensible to separate for grants purposes one part of a continuous process. But, as I have said, the Industrial Development Act requires the Board to have regard to what process each machine performs. It is true that a continuous process is carried out on the bottles from the moment they are removed, empty, from incoming crates, to the moment when they are replaced, washed, full of processed milk and capped, into crates. While this is being done, the emptied crates are separated on to a different conveyor, and

passed through a washing machine to the machine which will fill them with bottles of milk. It is this quite separate process of washing that we cannot admit to grant.
In essence, I think that I can say fairly that the case which my hon. and learned Friend has put to me is this. If grant is paid on bottle washing machines, and if grant is paid on crating machines, and if grant is paid on cold storage equipment, why should not grant be paid on machines used to wash the crates, which presumably have to be clean before they go into cold storage? In other words, is not the crate as essential to the process as the bottle; and, if so, why should washing not be grant-aided in both cases?
Taking the various pieces of plant in turn, grant is paid on bottle washing machines because the article being made is a bottle of processed milk. Washing the bottle is thus an essential part of the primary manufacturing process under Section 1(2)(a) of the Act. Grant is paid on crating machines because they are used for packing the bottles of milk in crates, and packing is a process incidental to manufacture under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act. Finally, grant is paid on cold storage equipment because it is used for storing the bottle of milk, and storage is a process incidental to manufacture under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act.
That the bottles are only put into clean crates does not alter the fact that the function of the crates is distribution. The crates are not part of the article being made, and therefore washing them cannot be part of the primary manufacturing process. Nor are crates used for any other qualifying or incidental process—if they had been, washing them might have been regarded as qualifying maintenance under Section 1(3)(a) of the Act.
As I have said, there is thus no provision of the Act under which crate washing machines can qualify for grant, and the fact that the bottles are in crates when they are stored cannot change this.
Lastly, I should like to dispel any thought that the Board of Trade has singled out the dairy industry for especially unfavourable treatment. This is not so. The general policy of discrimination in favour of manufacturing


and against distribution is applied across the whole industrial spectrum.
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving me the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding of the

Board of Trade's policy which may have arisen.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.